Verizon has been suspiciously quiet about this whole thing as far as I
can tell. Have they actually said whether or not they oppose or 'don't
care?'. The answer seems pretty obvious, but seeing as how loud
Sprints been about it, its strange that Verizon hasn't said anything.
Although they are the best carrier after all....So perhaps elephants
don't swat flys.
At 31 Aug 2011 14:48:13 -0700 MTS wrote:
> On Aug 31, 10:31*am, "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <s...@arms.edu> wrote:
> > http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9PF51M00.html
> >
> > --
> > Respectfully submitted,
> >
> > Douglas C. Neidermeyer,
> > Sergeant-at-Arms
>
> Verizon has been suspiciously quiet about this whole thing as far asI
> can tell. Have they actually said whether or not they oppose or 'don't
> care?'. The answer seems pretty obvious, but seeing as how loud
> Sprints been about it, its strange that Verizon hasn't said anything..
> Although they are the best carrier after all....So perhaps elephants
> don't swat flys.
Or, perhaps, they know anything they say against it now will come back
and bite them in the behind when they try to buy out Sprint for 10-cents
on the dollar in two or three years when the big-two drive Sprint off a
cliff with exclusive handset deals and 20x the ad spending.
On 8/31/2011 2:48 PM, MTS wrote:
> On Aug 31, 10:31 am, "Douglas C. Neidermeyer"<s...@arms.edu> wrote:
>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9PF51M00.html
>>
>> --
>> Respectfully submitted,
>>
>> Douglas C. Neidermeyer,
>> Sergeant-at-Arms
>
> Verizon has been suspiciously quiet about this whole thing as far as I
> can tell. Have they actually said whether or not they oppose or 'don't
> care?'. The answer seems pretty obvious, but seeing as how loud
> Sprints been about it, its strange that Verizon hasn't said anything.
> Although they are the best carrier after all....So perhaps elephants
> don't swat flys.
Verizon has always preferred to steer clear of this sort of thing in
public. When AT&T and Sprint were suing each other over various things
from Nascar to Sprint's "most dependable network" claim to AT&T's
"fewest dropped calls" claim, Verizon stayed out of the fray. Verizon
did get sued by AT&T for the "there's a map for that" ad campaign but of
course AT&T had no case and the whole thing was dropped.
At 31 Aug 2011 19:50:18 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 2:48 PM, MTS wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 10:31 am, "Douglas C. Neidermeyer"<s...@arms.edu> wrote:
> >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9PF51M00.html
> >>
> >> --
> >> Respectfully submitted,
> >>
> >> Douglas C. Neidermeyer,
> >> Sergeant-at-Arms
> >
> > Verizon has been suspiciously quiet about this whole thing as far as I
> > can tell. Have they actually said whether or not they oppose or 'don't
> > care?'. The answer seems pretty obvious, but seeing as how loud
> > Sprints been about it, its strange that Verizon hasn't said anything.
> > Although they are the best carrier after all....So perhaps elephants
> > don't swat flys.
>
> Verizon has always preferred to steer clear of this sort of thing in
> public. When AT&T and Sprint were suing each other over various things
> from Nascar to Sprint's "most dependable network" claim to AT&T's
> "fewest dropped calls" claim, Verizon stayed out of the fray. Verizon
> did get sued by AT&T for the "there's a map for that" ad campaign but
> of course AT&T had no case and the whole thing was dropped.
Of course AT&T "had a case." The ads WERE misleading (which was why they
were so clever), the question was whether they were misleading enough to
be illegal. That's the entire point of advertising- stretch the truth
just until the breaking point.
"The whole thing was dropped" apparently as part of a negotiation between
the two carriers, where Verizon and AT&T also dropped earlier lawsuits
against against each other for their "more bars in more places" and "most
reliable network" campaigns.
Of course, neither Verizon nor AT&T came out and said they negotiated a
"you drop yours, we'll drop ours" deal. It's quite possible both
companies just got tired of suing each other and just coincidentally sent
lawyers who just happened to meet with the same judge at the same time to
drop their lawsuits...
Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Todd Allcock said:
> Of course AT&T "had a case." The ads WERE misleading (which was why they
> were so clever), the question was whether they were misleading enough to
> be illegal. That's the entire point of advertising- stretch the truth
> just until the breaking point.
I didn't find "There's a Map For That" ads misleading at all. I found
them slightly amusing, as a riff on the AT&T/Apple "There's an app for
that" campaign for the iPhone. VZW was pitting their proven superior
3G coverage (ie, the ability to actually have coverage where you need
it) over the toy-factor of a gazillion applications on a phone that has
poor service.
Oh, and for the record, I gave up an iPhone on AT&T to go to a phone
with fewer such software toys on Verizon for precisely that reason -
Verizon's map is better than AT&T's app.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"Why does the Universe hate me?" (Amb. G'Kar, B5 "By Any Means
Necessary")
At 01 Sep 2011 04:50:37 +0000 Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Todd Allcock said:
>
> > Of course AT&T "had a case." The ads WERE misleading (which was why
they
> > were so clever), the question was whether they were misleading enough
to
> > be illegal. That's the entire point of advertising- stretch the truth
> > just until the breaking point.
>
> I didn't find "There's a Map For That" ads misleading at all. I found
> them slightly amusing, as a riff on the AT&T/Apple "There's an app for
> that" campaign for the iPhone. VZW was pitting their proven superior
> 3G coverage (ie, the ability to actually have coverage where you need
> it) over the toy-factor of a gazillion applications on a phone that has
> poor service.
The misleading part, (which I'm not suggesting was illegal, just "legally
misleading") was the implication that AT&T had *no* service in all those
white spaces on the map; not that those spaces indicated a lack of 3G.
(Sure, the tiny print at the bottom of the screen explained the map
depicted 3G coverage, but few read those disclaimers, and fewer
understand them.)
It's similar to how a bag of jelly beans will proclaim on the front of
the package in giant letters that they are "fat-free". Absolutely true,
but the obvious (and misleading) implication is that the jelly beans are
a "diet" or low calorie food. The boast on the bag, though, is 100% true-
the jelly beans are composed entirely of sugar and starch: there is
absolutely no fat involved.
> Oh, and for the record, I gave up an iPhone on AT&T to go to a phone
> with fewer such software toys on Verizon for precisely that reason -
> Verizon's map is better than AT&T's app
For the record, I'm a T-Mo customer, so I really have no dog in this
fight (until the proposed merger is approved, anyway!)
> Of course AT&T "had a case." The ads WERE misleading (which was why they
> were so clever), the question was whether they were misleading enough to
> be illegal. That's the entire point of advertising- stretch the truth
> just until the breaking point.
The ads were factual. They clearly compared 3G coverage. They were not
required to point out that AT&T had 2G coverage in many of the places
where Verizon had 3G coverage but AT&T didn't have 3G coverage.
AT&T's complaint was that the ads implied that AT&T had no coverage at
all in the places that Verizon said that AT&T had no 3G coverage.
At 01 Sep 2011 12:34:06 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 8:56 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Of course AT&T "had a case." The ads WERE misleading (which was why
they
> > were so clever), the question was whether they were misleading enough
to
> > be illegal. That's the entire point of advertising- stretch the truth
> > just until the breaking point.
>
> The ads were factual. They clearly compared 3G coverage. They were not
> required to point out that AT&T had 2G coverage in many of the places
> where Verizon had 3G coverage but AT&T didn't have 3G coverage.
And jelly beans are completely fat-free. And Coca-Cola only has 12
calories... ...per ounce. And a fat guy can lose 200 lbs. eating nothing
but sub sandwiches.
A lot of "facts" are designed to misrepresent the truth, that's what good
advertising does, and those Verizon ads were good advertising.
Every cellphone map and brochure uses white to indicate areas of no
service, so Verizon knew exactly what their ads implied.
> AT&T's complaint was that the ads implied that AT&T had no coverage at
> all in the places that Verizon said that AT&T had no 3G coverage.
And they did, unless you paid pretty close attention to the disclaimers,
AND had any idea what "3G" was. If not, the ads just showed two maps,
Verizon's full one, and AT&T's empty one.
Again, I'm not saying AT&T was "right" and Verizon "wrong", just that in
this climate of consumer protectionism, AT&T certainly had a case.
Personally, I'm more of an "all's fair in love, war, and advertising"
kind of guy. AT&T's place to call BS should've been in counter-
advertising, not in court, but in any case, the suit seemed to help them
settle a bunch of others.
> Again, I'm not saying AT&T was "right" and Verizon "wrong", just that in
> this climate of consumer protectionism, AT&T certainly had a case.
> Personally, I'm more of an "all's fair in love, war, and advertising"
> kind of guy. AT&T's place to call BS should've been in counter-
> advertising, not in court, but in any case, the suit seemed to help them
> settle a bunch of others.
AT&T constantly used misleading, and outright false, advertising. From
"fewest dropped calls" (okay that was Cingular) to the ads touting the
most worldwide coverage (which were actually untrue because a world
phone on Verizon gave you more coverage than a quad-band phone on AT&T).
At least Verizon's ads were actually factual, even if they did not tell
the whole story.
In article <4e5ff581$0$2207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
> On 9/1/2011 1:20 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Again, I'm not saying AT&T was "right" and Verizon "wrong", just that in
> > this climate of consumer protectionism, AT&T certainly had a case.
> > Personally, I'm more of an "all's fair in love, war, and advertising"
> > kind of guy. AT&T's place to call BS should've been in counter-
> > advertising, not in court, but in any case, the suit seemed to help them
> > settle a bunch of others.
>
> AT&T constantly used misleading, and outright false, advertising. From
> "fewest dropped calls" (okay that was Cingular)
That wasn't misleading. You can't DROP the call if you are unable to
PLACE the call.
In article <3fWdnasxjvpy5_zTnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@supernews.com> , willshak
says...
>
> Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote the following:
> > http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9PF51M00.html
> >
> >
> >
>
> The only thing I worry about a possible merger is, what happens to the
> T-Mobile girl?
I was kinda pissed that they got rid of Voicestream spokes-hottie Jamie
Lee Curtis, but they replaced her with someone equally pretty.
I'm sure that at some point, Carly Foulkes (the current T-Mo
spokesperson) would be replaced anyhow. Ad campaigns don't last forever.
And they'll find someone else worth watching, I'm sure.
Steve Sobol wrote on [Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:48:24 -0700]:
> In article <3fWdnasxjvpy5_zTnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@supernews.com> , willshak
> says...
>>
>> Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote the following:
>> > http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9PF51M00.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The only thing I worry about a possible merger is, what happens to the
>> T-Mobile girl?
>
> I was kinda pissed that they got rid of Voicestream spokes-hottie Jamie
> Lee Curtis, but they replaced her with someone equally pretty.
Well, Jamie Lee Curtis got that gig with activia.
> I'm sure that at some point, Carly Foulkes (the current T-Mo
> spokesperson) would be replaced anyhow. Ad campaigns don't last forever.
> And they'll find someone else worth watching, I'm sure.
On 9/2/11 9:25 PM, meh wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:55:13 -0400, willshak<willshak@00hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote the following:
>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9PF51M00.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The only thing I worry about a possible merger is, what happens to the
>> T-Mobile girl?
>
> She gets a real job?
>
>
And hopefully one that pays better so she can buy enough food to put
some weight on. Pretty-- but might scrawny.
Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote the following:
> On 9/2/11 9:25 PM, meh wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:55:13 -0400, willshak<willshak@00hvc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote the following:
>>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9PF51M00.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only thing I worry about a possible merger is, what happens to the
>>> T-Mobile girl?
>>
>> She gets a real job?
>>
>>
>
> And hopefully one that pays better so she can buy enough food to put
> some weight on. Pretty-- but might scrawny.
>
>
In article <j3s9f3$4hj$1@dont-email.me>, Justin says...
> > I was kinda pissed that they got rid of Voicestream spokes-hottie
Jamie
> > Lee Curtis, but they replaced her with someone equally pretty.
>
> Well, Jamie Lee Curtis got that gig with activia.
>
> > I'm sure that at some point, Carly Foulkes (the current T-Mo
> > spokesperson) would be replaced anyhow. Ad campaigns don't last forever.
> > And they'll find someone else worth watching, I'm sure.
>
> They got rid of Catherine Zeta Jones...
And replaced her with Carly Foulkes. You just made my point
Steve Sobol wrote on [Sat, 3 Sep 2011 12:46:55 -0700]:
> In article <j3s9f3$4hj$1@dont-email.me>, Justin says...
>
>> > I was kinda pissed that they got rid of Voicestream spokes-hottie
> Jamie
>> > Lee Curtis, but they replaced her with someone equally pretty.
>>
>> Well, Jamie Lee Curtis got that gig with activia.
>>
>> > I'm sure that at some point, Carly Foulkes (the current T-Mo
>> > spokesperson) would be replaced anyhow. Ad campaigns don't last forever.
>> > And they'll find someone else worth watching, I'm sure.
>>
>> They got rid of Catherine Zeta Jones...
>
> And replaced her with Carly Foulkes. You just made my point
In article <j3u20u$h4c$1@dont-email.me>, Justin says...
>
> Steve Sobol wrote on [Sat, 3 Sep 2011 12:46:55 -0700]:
> > In article <j3s9f3$4hj$1@dont-email.me>, Justin says...
> >
> >> > I was kinda pissed that they got rid of Voicestream spokes-hottie
> > Jamie
> >> > Lee Curtis, but they replaced her with someone equally pretty.
> >>
> >> Well, Jamie Lee Curtis got that gig with activia.
> >>
> >> > I'm sure that at some point, Carly Foulkes (the current T-Mo
> >> > spokesperson) would be replaced anyhow. Ad campaigns don't last forever.
> >> > And they'll find someone else worth watching, I'm sure.
> >>
> >> They got rid of Catherine Zeta Jones...
> >
> > And replaced her with Carly Foulkes. You just made my point
>
> Yeah, whoever the hell she is
I'd never heard of her before the latest T-Mo ad campaigns, either.
At 01 Sep 2011 14:13:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 1:20 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Again, I'm not saying AT&T was "right" and Verizon "wrong", just that
in
> > this climate of consumer protectionism, AT&T certainly had a case.
> > Personally, I'm more of an "all's fair in love, war, and advertising"
> > kind of guy. AT&T's place to call BS should've been in counter-
> > advertising, not in court, but in any case, the suit seemed to help
them
> > settle a bunch of others.
>
> AT&T constantly used misleading, and outright false, advertising. From
> "fewest dropped calls" (okay that was Cingular) to the ads touting the
> most worldwide coverage (which were actually untrue because a world
> phone on Verizon gave you more coverage than a quad-band phone on
> AT&T).
That one's a grey area, IMO. If you looked across the carriers' entire
lineup of phones, the vast majority of AT&T phones were/are world phones,
whereas a couple of Verizon smartphones and one or two dumbphones that
the majority of stores didn't stock were world phones. The vast majority
of AT&T customers could have "more bars in more places" than the vast
majority of Verizon customers. Consumers aren't the crazy cellphone
fanatics that populate these NG's. I doubt the average cell phone
customer understands the differences between world standards. I'll
wager that everyday, people probably bring their American phones on trips
overseas and are surprised when they don't work, just like people buy
DVDs overseas only to discover they don't play on their American DVD
players and TVs when they get back home.
Regardless, AT&T certainly knew those ads implied AT&T offered better
coverage than Verizon period, knowing most viewers would ***-U-me the ads
meant domestic coverage rather than worldwide, just like Verizon knew
viewers would ***-U-me those 3G "maps for that" ads meant total coverage,
not just 3G.
> At least Verizon's ads were actually factual, even if they did
> not tell the whole story.
I'm sure if you run the data through whatever disclaimers live in the
fine print that's only legible on a 60" HDTV set, AT&T's ads were just as
"true" as Verizon's.
Neither carrier has a moral highground WRT their advertising, which makes
them no different than most companies.
On 9/6/2011 1:21 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 01 Sep 2011 14:13:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
>> On 9/1/2011 1:20 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> Again, I'm not saying AT&T was "right" and Verizon "wrong", just that
> in
>>> this climate of consumer protectionism, AT&T certainly had a case.
>>> Personally, I'm more of an "all's fair in love, war, and advertising"
>>> kind of guy. AT&T's place to call BS should've been in counter-
>>> advertising, not in court, but in any case, the suit seemed to help
> them
>>> settle a bunch of others.
>>
>> AT&T constantly used misleading, and outright false, advertising. From
>> "fewest dropped calls" (okay that was Cingular) to the ads touting the
>> most worldwide coverage (which were actually untrue because a world
>> phone on Verizon gave you more coverage than a quad-band phone on
>> AT&T).
>
> That one's a grey area, IMO. If you looked across the carriers' entire
> lineup of phones, the vast majority of AT&T phones were/are world phones,
> whereas a couple of Verizon smartphones and one or two dumbphones that
> the majority of stores didn't stock were world phones. The vast majority
> of AT&T customers could have "more bars in more places" than the vast
> majority of Verizon customers. Consumers aren't the crazy cellphone
> fanatics that populate these NG's. I doubt the average cell phone
> customer understands the differences between world standards. I'll
> wager that everyday, people probably bring their American phones on trips
> overseas and are surprised when they don't work, just like people buy
> DVDs overseas only to discover they don't play on their American DVD
> players and TVs when they get back home.
>
> Regardless, AT&T certainly knew those ads implied AT&T offered better
> coverage than Verizon period, knowing most viewers would ***-U-me the ads
> meant domestic coverage rather than worldwide, just like Verizon knew
> viewers would ***-U-me those 3G "maps for that" ads meant total coverage,
> not just 3G.
>
>
>> At least Verizon's ads were actually factual, even if they did
>> not tell the whole story.
>
>
> I'm sure if you run the data through whatever disclaimers live in the
> fine print that's only legible on a 60" HDTV set, AT&T's ads were just as
> "true" as Verizon's.
>
> Neither carrier has a moral highground WRT their advertising, which makes
> them no different than most companies.
>
>
Is there anyone here so brain dead that they BELIEVE advertising?
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> Is there anyone here so brain dead that they BELIEVE advertising?
Here? Perhaps not. But apparently most consumers do. If ads didn't create
sales the phone companies wouldn't spend the $$$millions they do on them
(or fight it out in court over what the ads claim)...
> That one's a grey area, IMO. If you looked across the carriers' entire
> lineup of phones, the vast majority of AT&T phones were/are world phones,
> whereas a couple of Verizon smartphones and one or two dumbphones that
> the majority of stores didn't stock were world phones. The vast majority
> of AT&T customers could have "more bars in more places" than the vast
> majority of Verizon customers. Consumers aren't the crazy cellphone
> fanatics that populate these NG's. I doubt the average cell phone
> customer understands the differences between world standards.
That's true, except for world travelers which are usually well aware of
the differences.
Everyone at my last two companies was well aware of the differences.
Ironically, for most of the travel we did, Verizon was a slightly better
choice because we mainly went to Korea (CDMA only), China (GSM/CDMA),
Taiwan (GSM/CDMA), Israel (GSM/CDMA), and Japan (neither). Those with
GSM phones could rent phones in Korea so it was no big deal, and some of
us were frugal enough with the company's money that we had 900/1800 GSM
phones that we used with a prepaid SIM card when traveling in countries
with GSM rather than roaming at a very high cost.
Also remember that for a long time few AT&T GSM phones were even quad-band.
> I'll
> wager that everyday, people probably bring their American phones on trips
> overseas and are surprised when they don't work,
Overseas travelers tend to be a little more savvy about this kind of
thing, so I don't know how good a wager that is.
> just like people buy
> DVDs overseas only to discover they don't play on their American DVD
> players and TVs when they get back home.
That is a real pain in the butt, especially when the overseas DVDs are
NTSC as well. I had to be careful when choosing a DVD player to be sure
to buy one that can play all regions, or one that can change the region
code easily.
On 9/6/2011 2:32 PM, AJL wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Is there anyone here so brain dead that they BELIEVE advertising?
>
> Here? Perhaps not. But apparently most consumers do. If ads didn't create
> sales the phone companies wouldn't spend the $$$millions they do on them
> (or fight it out in court over what the ads claim)...
Technically you can't outright lie in advertising or there can be
consequences. But you can obfuscate. Verizon's "There's an App for That"
may have obfuscated somewhat--the ad _clearly_ was comparing 3G coverage
only, but some viewers may not have realized that just because there is
no 3G data coverage that does not mean there is no voice coverage.
Cingular's "Fewest Dropped Calls" was a real stretch. There were
apparently some markets where they had fewer and some markets where they
had more dropped calls, but the ads didn't state that.
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:54:15 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>On 9/6/2011 2:32 PM, AJL wrote:
>> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there anyone here so brain dead that they BELIEVE advertising?
>>
>> Here? Perhaps not. But apparently most consumers do. If ads didn't create
>> sales the phone companies wouldn't spend the $$$millions they do on them
>> (or fight it out in court over what the ads claim)...
>
>Technically you can't outright lie in advertising or there can be
>consequences. But you can obfuscate.
SMS wrote the following:
> On 9/6/2011 2:32 PM, AJL wrote:
>> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there anyone here so brain dead that they BELIEVE advertising?
>>
>> Here? Perhaps not. But apparently most consumers do. If ads didn't create
>> sales the phone companies wouldn't spend the $$$millions they do on them
>> (or fight it out in court over what the ads claim)...
>
> Technically you can't outright lie in advertising or there can be
> consequences. But you can obfuscate. Verizon's "There's an App for That"
The Verizon ad says "There's a 'Map' for that", showing a map of the US
with their wide coverage area. playing off Apple's iPhone trademarked
"There's an app for that".
> may have obfuscated somewhat--the ad _clearly_ was comparing 3G coverage
> only, but some viewers may not have realized that just because there is
> no 3G data coverage that does not mean there is no voice coverage.
>
> Cingular's "Fewest Dropped Calls" was a real stretch. There were
> apparently some markets where they had fewer and some markets where they
> had more dropped calls, but the ads didn't state that.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
On 9/7/2011 8:00 AM, willshak wrote:
> SMS wrote the following:
>> On 9/6/2011 2:32 PM, AJL wrote:
>>> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there anyone here so brain dead that they BELIEVE advertising?
>>>
>>> Here? Perhaps not. But apparently most consumers do. If ads didn't
>>> create
>>> sales the phone companies wouldn't spend the $$$millions they do on them
>>> (or fight it out in court over what the ads claim)...
>>
>> Technically you can't outright lie in advertising or there can be
>> consequences. But you can obfuscate. Verizon's "There's an App for That"
>
>
> The Verizon ad says "There's a 'Map' for that", showing a map of the US
> with their wide coverage area. playing off Apple's iPhone trademarked
> "There's an app for that".
Verizon Wireless' "map" showed coverage in Princeton, New Jersey.
Guess what!! Using their "coverage" resulted in my paying a roaming charge!
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> Verizon Wireless' "map" showed coverage in Princeton, New Jersey.
> Guess what!! Using their "coverage" resulted in my paying a roaming charge!
Of course. Depends on your plan. With my el cheapo Legacy plan I am roaming
on most of Verizon's 'coverage' maps. But that's voice. On the data
coverage maps I'm free everywhere (US) and isn't that what the ads about?
On 9/7/2011 9:34 AM, AJL wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Verizon Wireless' "map" showed coverage in Princeton, New Jersey.
>> Guess what!! Using their "coverage" resulted in my paying a roaming charge!
>
> Of course. Depends on your plan. With my el cheapo Legacy plan I am roaming
> on most of Verizon's 'coverage' maps. But that's voice. On the data
> coverage maps I'm free everywhere (US) and isn't that what the ads about?
When I had Verizon with the original "America's Choice" plan there was
supposed to be some included roaming (Extended Network) and some paid
roaming (not on Extended Network). America's Choice II dropped a lot of
roaming (for a while they had two sets of maps on their web site) in
terms of area, but most of that was analog roaming and most of that
analog is gone now anyway. I often used the roaming off the "Extended
Network" (according to the phone indicator), but I _never_ was charged
for it.
On Pageplus I definitely get charged for roaming off of Verizon, but it
occurs so rarely that it's not a big worry.
The most amusing roaming I did was out in the Everglades where I was
roaming onto the AMPS systems that AT&T Wireless and Cingular were
required to keep operating until the AMPS shutdown. There was no digital
coverage at all. While almost no AT&T Wireless or Cingular customers
could use the system (maybe a few with old GAIT phones), Verizon and
Sprint customers could use them. Of course now the AMPS coverage in
remote areas is gone, and digital didn't replace it in most cases.
Feds Sue ATT to Block T-Mo Acquisition 
Linear Mode
