I have had my account for 4 years now and I just renewed it for two more
years. I had with it, "National Access", MOU, "Minutes only used". I would
take my LG 4650 and the office kit for it that Verizon sold me and I would
tether to my laptop and a few times a month when I was away from home, I
would check my email. It usually took less than a minute.
When I renewed my contract I got a LG VX5300 from Verizon. Now I wanted to
check my email again as I have for the past 4 years. Instead of using the
Office Kit I used the bluetooth DUN capabilities of the phone together with
VZAccess manager and when I attempted this, my authentication was refused. I
called support and I was told the network would not allow me to connect in
this manner. I was informed that I would have to buy another "Office Kit"
for this phone and I would have to use the cable to connect.
I felt I was deceived and I may have took it out on the support person and I
regret that. However, one can understand the way I felt if you look at the
advertisement for the phone at VERIZON'S webpage. Under "Features" it says
Bluetooth capable* and then adds "*The VX5300 supports the Headset,
Hands-free, Serial Port, Dial Up Networking and Object Push profiles for
vCard."
If the network does not allow a Bluetooth DUN connection, then why do they
advertise it? If the phone can only work on Verizon's network and Verizon's
network does not allow the connection, then how can they claim that the
phone has that capability? It clearly DOES NOT!
Please tell me if I am misinformed or if I am not understanding something
correctly.
Oh! Did I mention that they don't list an office kit for the VX5300?
Things have changed. MOU is no longer. If you want to tether a phone to
connect to the Internet via Laptop the charge is now $59.95/mo. Period.
However, the good news is that you can use Bluetooth or a cable. Actually,
no "office kit" is required either. Just gotta have a cable (from ebay or
wherever).
-Frank
"James R. Brown" <heavy-duty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13b4ekib6bs0117@corp.supernews.com...
>I have had my account for 4 years now and I just renewed it for two more
>years. I had with it, "National Access", MOU, "Minutes only used". I would
>take my LG 4650 and the office kit for it that Verizon sold me and I would
>tether to my laptop and a few times a month when I was away from home, I
>would check my email. It usually took less than a minute.
>
> When I renewed my contract I got a LG VX5300 from Verizon. Now I wanted to
> check my email again as I have for the past 4 years. Instead of using the
> Office Kit I used the bluetooth DUN capabilities of the phone together
> with VZAccess manager and when I attempted this, my authentication was
> refused. I called support and I was told the network would not allow me to
> connect in this manner. I was informed that I would have to buy another
> "Office Kit" for this phone and I would have to use the cable to connect.
>
> I felt I was deceived and I may have took it out on the support person and
> I regret that. However, one can understand the way I felt if you look at
> the advertisement for the phone at VERIZON'S webpage. Under "Features" it
> says Bluetooth capable* and then adds "*The VX5300 supports the Headset,
> Hands-free, Serial Port, Dial Up Networking and Object Push profiles for
> vCard."
>
> If the network does not allow a Bluetooth DUN connection, then why do they
> advertise it? If the phone can only work on Verizon's network and
> Verizon's network does not allow the connection, then how can they claim
> that the phone has that capability? It clearly DOES NOT!
>
> Please tell me if I am misinformed or if I am not understanding something
> correctly.
>
> Oh! Did I mention that they don't list an office kit for the VX5300?
>
>
>
I spent like 2 hours (and about 4M on a sch-a650 on verizon 1xrtt
today (typical #777 login, etc)... I certainly do not pay $59.95/mo for
access.
Now, my VX9800 OTOH is a piece of **** and hardly works on its own, and
absolutely sucks for data connectivity, but it works too (via BT, I hear
a USB cable would help but I plan to move to a wifi-capable WM5/6 phone
[probably not CDMA] sooner than later)
Quite simply my contract says "NA MOU"... changing that breaks the
contract, and they realize that allows practically every one of their
contracted customers a very easy free cancellation.
So, what gives?
Frankster wrote:
> Things have changed. MOU is no longer. If you want to tether a phone to
> connect to the Internet via Laptop the charge is now $59.95/mo. Period.
> However, the good news is that you can use Bluetooth or a cable.
> Actually, no "office kit" is required either. Just gotta have a cable
> (from ebay or wherever).
>
> -Frank
>
> "James R. Brown" <heavy-duty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13b4ekib6bs0117@corp.supernews.com...
>> I have had my account for 4 years now and I just renewed it for two
>> more years. I had with it, "National Access", MOU, "Minutes only
>> used". I would take my LG 4650 and the office kit for it that Verizon
>> sold me and I would tether to my laptop and a few times a month when I
>> was away from home, I would check my email. It usually took less than
>> a minute.
>>
>> When I renewed my contract I got a LG VX5300 from Verizon. Now I
>> wanted to check my email again as I have for the past 4 years. Instead
>> of using the Office Kit I used the bluetooth DUN capabilities of the
>> phone together with VZAccess manager and when I attempted this, my
>> authentication was refused. I called support and I was told the
>> network would not allow me to connect in this manner. I was informed
>> that I would have to buy another "Office Kit" for this phone and I
>> would have to use the cable to connect.
>>
>> I felt I was deceived and I may have took it out on the support person
>> and I regret that. However, one can understand the way I felt if you
>> look at the advertisement for the phone at VERIZON'S webpage. Under
>> "Features" it says Bluetooth capable* and then adds "*The VX5300
>> supports the Headset, Hands-free, Serial Port, Dial Up Networking and
>> Object Push profiles for vCard."
>>
>> If the network does not allow a Bluetooth DUN connection, then why do
>> they advertise it? If the phone can only work on Verizon's network and
>> Verizon's network does not allow the connection, then how can they
>> claim that the phone has that capability? It clearly DOES NOT!
>>
>> Please tell me if I am misinformed or if I am not understanding
>> something correctly.
>>
>> Oh! Did I mention that they don't list an office kit for the VX5300?
>>
>>
>>
>
Hi, thanks for your response. I talked to Verizon today and they told me
basically what you said. No more MOU. Period. They said they sent letters
out to some customers but I sure never got one. Of course I will not pay
$59.95 a month just to occasionally use it to check my email. It's too
damned slow for anything else! The only good thing is that there is a lot
more WIFI available out there now than there used to be so I can live
without it anyway.
I just kind of resent what I think is their attitude that I was somehow
abusing their network by "getting away with it" for this long. (That's how
the customer rep put it). Oh well, someday maybe all the politicians won't
be on the take, and these wireless companies won't be able to pull this
crap. Technologies change all the time. Perhaps some day we can tell all
these wireless rustlers where they can stick it.
"Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
news:TaGdnQSdKsz0PC_bnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Things have changed. MOU is no longer. If you want to tether a phone to
> connect to the Internet via Laptop the charge is now $59.95/mo. Period.
> However, the good news is that you can use Bluetooth or a cable. Actually,
> no "office kit" is required either. Just gotta have a cable (from ebay or
> wherever).
>
> -Frank
>
> "James R. Brown" <heavy-duty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13b4ekib6bs0117@corp.supernews.com...
>>I have had my account for 4 years now and I just renewed it for two more
>>years. I had with it, "National Access", MOU, "Minutes only used". I would
>>take my LG 4650 and the office kit for it that Verizon sold me and I would
>>tether to my laptop and a few times a month when I was away from home, I
>>would check my email. It usually took less than a minute.
>>
>> When I renewed my contract I got a LG VX5300 from Verizon. Now I wanted
>> to check my email again as I have for the past 4 years. Instead of using
>> the Office Kit I used the bluetooth DUN capabilities of the phone
>> together with VZAccess manager and when I attempted this, my
>> authentication was refused. I called support and I was told the network
>> would not allow me to connect in this manner. I was informed that I would
>> have to buy another "Office Kit" for this phone and I would have to use
>> the cable to connect.
>>
>> I felt I was deceived and I may have took it out on the support person
>> and I regret that. However, one can understand the way I felt if you look
>> at the advertisement for the phone at VERIZON'S webpage. Under "Features"
>> it says Bluetooth capable* and then adds "*The VX5300 supports the
>> Headset, Hands-free, Serial Port, Dial Up Networking and Object Push
>> profiles for vCard."
>>
>> If the network does not allow a Bluetooth DUN connection, then why do
>> they advertise it? If the phone can only work on Verizon's network and
>> Verizon's network does not allow the connection, then how can they claim
>> that the phone has that capability? It clearly DOES NOT!
>>
>> Please tell me if I am misinformed or if I am not understanding something
>> correctly.
>>
>> Oh! Did I mention that they don't list an office kit for the VX5300?
>>
>>
>>
>
Unfortunately, I can imagine what it would be like to get into a legal match
with a wireless company. You may be right in a strict legal sense, but the
reality is that the courts, and the credit agencies will always side with
the big guys. I'll bet you would wind up paying the cancellation fees and
anything else they can stick you for.
<balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5nEsi.34521$Om6.22787@fe12.usenetserver.com.. .
> Huh?
>
> I spent like 2 hours (and about 4M on a sch-a650 on verizon 1xrtt today
> (typical #777 login, etc)... I certainly do not pay $59.95/mo for access.
>
> Now, my VX9800 OTOH is a piece of **** and hardly works on its own, and
> absolutely sucks for data connectivity, but it works too (via BT, I hear a
> USB cable would help but I plan to move to a wifi-capable WM5/6 phone
> [probably not CDMA] sooner than later)
>
> Quite simply my contract says "NA MOU"... changing that breaks the
> contract, and they realize that allows practically every one of their
> contracted customers a very easy free cancellation.
>
> So, what gives?
>
> Frankster wrote:
>> Things have changed. MOU is no longer. If you want to tether a phone to
>> connect to the Internet via Laptop the charge is now $59.95/mo. Period.
>> However, the good news is that you can use Bluetooth or a cable.
>> Actually, no "office kit" is required either. Just gotta have a cable
>> (from ebay or wherever).
>>
>> -Frank
>>
>> "James R. Brown" <heavy-duty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13b4ekib6bs0117@corp.supernews.com...
>>> I have had my account for 4 years now and I just renewed it for two more
>>> years. I had with it, "National Access", MOU, "Minutes only used". I
>>> would take my LG 4650 and the office kit for it that Verizon sold me and
>>> I would tether to my laptop and a few times a month when I was away from
>>> home, I would check my email. It usually took less than a minute.
>>>
>>> When I renewed my contract I got a LG VX5300 from Verizon. Now I wanted
>>> to check my email again as I have for the past 4 years. Instead of using
>>> the Office Kit I used the bluetooth DUN capabilities of the phone
>>> together with VZAccess manager and when I attempted this, my
>>> authentication was refused. I called support and I was told the network
>>> would not allow me to connect in this manner. I was informed that I
>>> would have to buy another "Office Kit" for this phone and I would have
>>> to use the cable to connect.
>>>
>>> I felt I was deceived and I may have took it out on the support person
>>> and I regret that. However, one can understand the way I felt if you
>>> look at the advertisement for the phone at VERIZON'S webpage. Under
>>> "Features" it says Bluetooth capable* and then adds "*The VX5300
>>> supports the Headset, Hands-free, Serial Port, Dial Up Networking and
>>> Object Push profiles for vCard."
>>>
>>> If the network does not allow a Bluetooth DUN connection, then why do
>>> they advertise it? If the phone can only work on Verizon's network and
>>> Verizon's network does not allow the connection, then how can they claim
>>> that the phone has that capability? It clearly DOES NOT!
>>>
>>> Please tell me if I am misinformed or if I am not understanding
>>> something correctly.
>>>
>>> Oh! Did I mention that they don't list an office kit for the VX5300?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote:
> Huh?
>
> I spent like 2 hours (and about 4M on a sch-a650 on verizon 1xrtt
> today (typical #777 login, etc)... I certainly do not pay $59.95/mo for
> access.
>
> Now, my VX9800 OTOH is a piece of **** and hardly works on its own, and
> absolutely sucks for data connectivity, but it works too (via BT, I hear
> a USB cable would help but I plan to move to a wifi-capable WM5/6 phone
> [probably not CDMA] sooner than later)
>
> Quite simply my contract says "NA MOU"... changing that breaks the
> contract, and they realize that allows practically every one of their
> contracted customers a very easy free cancellation.
>
> So, what gives?
>
>
The problem lies in that you cannot "cherry pick" terms and conditions
in a contract. It must be read and considered in its entirety. So you
may reason you are right but what other terms and conditions apply?
You are correct. They never agreed to provide those services forever. It's
their network and they can do what they want with it. When my contract comes
up for renewal again I will again have choices and I can decide, fair or
not, right or not, that Verizon has pissed me off and I can take my little
insignificant business some where else.
"Dave Rudisill" <denali@alaska.net> wrote in message
news:uen8b353134p83puvdf4g097ba2ghthtnk@4ax.com...
> Verizon has been eliminating the free MOU Internet access for a couple
> years now. New accounts no longer have that ability. Changes to your
> existing account often result in loss of MOU access. Nobody really knows
> what triggers loss of the service, but it is disappearing.
>
> FWIW, you were never guaranteed free Internet access by Verizon. It was
> an undocumented feature. Even if your original paperwork had "NA MOU"
> printed on it, that was simply a list of current features, not a
> ontract. If you read your actual contract, you will see that they never
> agreed to give you ANY free services into perpetuity.
>
> --
> Dave
James R. Brown wrote:
> You are correct. They never agreed to provide those services forever. It's
> their network and they can do what they want with it. When my contract comes
> up for renewal again I will again have choices and I can decide, fair or
> not, right or not, that Verizon has pissed me off and I can take my little
> insignificant business some where else.
Many companies who thought the way you do have found out that when you
aggregate enough thousands of little insignificant business, it becomes
big, non-insignificant business.
--
Spammer gets 30 years in the slammer
Suddenly wishes Viagra was harder to come by
<http://www.theregister.com/2007/08/02/spammer_gets_30_years/>
On 2007-08-04, James R. Brown <heavy-duty@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You are correct. They never agreed to provide those services forever. It's
> their network and they can do what they want with it. When my contract comes
> up for renewal again I will again have choices and I can decide, fair or
> not, right or not, that Verizon has pissed me off and I can take my little
> insignificant business some where else.
Exactly, and that's the only way VZW will get the point. It's easy enough to
do, especially now that you can port your number.
Theres the 'expected level of service', ie - what worked at the time of
sale. This is why Verizon is forced to allow you out of contract if
they change coverage mid-contract (I should have canceled when they
dropped Sprint roaming in my area, that was the beginning of the end...)
their sales people will argue, but in reality its not up to them. Your
contract includes a contact address, use it. Be sure to send it
certified or registered (whichever one is proper for legal contact, I've
forgotten at the moment) with reasons for termination and a correction
timeframe if applicable (for example - the sprint roaming thing was set
in stone, it wasn't going to 'get fixed').
Keep copies of all correspondance. Don't play games on the phone,
request they send everything in writing. Keep copies of everything.
This helps tons if they actually try to go against your credit - you'll
find most lenders will ignore these kinds of 'marks' on your credit with
complete documentation.
If this became a common scenario, you'd find cellcos changing their
attitudes quickly due to their only recourse method being made
completely lame. Most people just don't follow through with the hassles
and thats what Verizon hopes happens to everyone they screw over.
Why can't there be any good CDMA carriers? I sure hate american GSM
voice quality, but the call handling sure is nice.
James R. Brown wrote:
> You are correct. They never agreed to provide those services forever. It's
> their network and they can do what they want with it. When my contract comes
> up for renewal again I will again have choices and I can decide, fair or
> not, right or not, that Verizon has pissed me off and I can take my little
> insignificant business some where else.
>
> "Dave Rudisill" <denali@alaska.net> wrote in message
> news:uen8b353134p83puvdf4g097ba2ghthtnk@4ax.com...
>> Verizon has been eliminating the free MOU Internet access for a couple
>> years now. New accounts no longer have that ability. Changes to your
>> existing account often result in loss of MOU access. Nobody really knows
>> what triggers loss of the service, but it is disappearing.
>>
>> FWIW, you were never guaranteed free Internet access by Verizon. It was
>> an undocumented feature. Even if your original paperwork had "NA MOU"
>> printed on it, that was simply a list of current features, not a
>> ontract. If you read your actual contract, you will see that they never
>> agreed to give you ANY free services into perpetuity.
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>
>
In article <roobb3punpa6s06qas628kphhkjkcki701@4ax.com>,
Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:27:29 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
><sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>>Exactly, and that's the only way VZW will get the point. It's easy enough to
>>do, especially now that you can port your number.
>
>Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
>
>AT&T/Cingular? Just as bad. I stay away from their stores like the
>plague!
>
>T-Mobile? I don't think so. No coverage outside metro areas.
Depending on your phone's capability, too. No provider offers coverage
*everywhere* in the US. If your GSM phone only covers 1900 Mhz (US), and
roaming is on 850 Mhz (US), you won't get coverage. But, if your phone at
least covers both frequencies, then you have a much stronger chance of
getting coverage.
It is easy enough to switch phones under GSM - just find a GSM phone you
like, ensure it is either unlocked or branded by the your provider, put in
the SIM, and you're good to go!
>
>Overall, Verizon is the best of the bad companies out there that
>provides near nationwide service.
For overall US coverage, yes. For price, far and a way, no.
Most of the world is GSM anyway. Get a quad-band GSM phone, go with
T-Mobile, and you get the best coverage (worldwide) and pricing options
(domestic) available.
>
>Alltel is a good regional provider, but I couldn't get a local number
>if I went to Alltel.
>
>Dave
>
I have no stock in any cell company. I'm looking to offload my 13 month
left postpaid Verizon Wireless contract and go prepaid with TMobile. I
just don't use the phone.
If anyone is interested in taking my contract, please email me. I have
an LG VX8300 (excellent condition) and a Nokia 6256i (unrestricted
bluetooth), also in excellent condition. Each comes with AC and battery
charger. Phone of your choice included with contract. Heck, if you
want both phones, they are both yours if you take my contract.
On 2007-08-05, Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:27:29 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
><sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>>Exactly, and that's the only way VZW will get the point. It's easy enough to
>>do, especially now that you can port your number.
>
> Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
> AT&T/Cingular? Just as bad. I stay away from their stores like the
> plague!
>
> T-Mobile? I don't think so. No coverage outside metro areas.
That is untrue. As you know, I use T-Mobile. I agree 100% that
T-Mobile's coverage still needs some work to get up to the level of
the other carriers. However, "no coverage outside metro areas" is not
the case, not everywhere. T-Mobile has had service in my parents'
rural town in the middle of nowhere in Northeast Ohio, for example,
since they launched their Cleveland network in 2001(ish), shortly after
the VoiceStream rebranding. They were even able to give my brother a
number local to the town, a Claridon Twp. exchange (Claridon's also
extremely rural, and Cingular was the only other carrier with local
numbers there at the time.)
That's only one example. There are others.
And on my plan, with my quad-band phone, I will roam for free on
Cingular when necessary. But I haven't had to roam yet...
> Overall, Verizon is the best of the bad companies out there that
> provides near nationwide service.
Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. I attribute that to the fact that they
started by merging a few already-mature networks, and they have continued to
build out their network.
"Diamond Dave" <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:roobb3punpa6s06qas628kphhkjkcki701@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:27:29 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>>Exactly, and that's the only way VZW will get the point. It's easy enough to
>>do, especially now that you can port your number.
>
> Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
>
> AT&T/Cingular? Just as bad. I stay away from their stores like the
> plague!
>
> T-Mobile? I don't think so. No coverage outside metro areas.
>
> Overall, Verizon is the best of the bad companies out there that
> provides near nationwide service.
>
> Alltel is a good regional provider, but I couldn't get a local number
> if I went to Alltel.
>
> Dave
>
>>Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
While I agree that CS is an important part of service, it is not used nearly as much as my plan. I might call CS 5 times a year for an issue, while I use my phone/plan constantly. Compare any Verizon plan to a Sprint SERO plan. Even with horrid CS it works in my favor.
Verizon abuses its customers a little bit every day (crippling phones, non-competitive plans), while Sprint really only does that when you need CS. I think Sprint can improve their faults easier than Verizon can remake its business model. Just my opinion.
On 2007-08-05, GolfGod <golfgod@comcast.net> wrote:
> While I agree that CS is an important part of service, it is not used =
> nearly as much as my plan. I might call CS 5 times a year for an issue, =
> while I use my phone/plan constantly. Compare any Verizon plan to a =
> Sprint SERO plan. Even with horrid CS it works in my favor.
> Verizon abuses its customers a little bit every day (crippling phones, =
> non-competitive plans), while Sprint really only does that when you need =
> CS. I think Sprint can improve their faults easier than Verizon can =
> remake its business model. Just my opinion.
Great post. I agree to a certain extent. As long as you don't have billing or
other issues that require calls to CS you're fine. Sprint's network is not
only strong in the area I grew up and recently moved from, but is also strong
out here. And I liked the phones and services too, when I was with Sprint.
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 16:55:45 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>That is untrue. As you know, I use T-Mobile. I agree 100% that
>T-Mobile's coverage still needs some work to get up to the level of
>the other carriers. However, "no coverage outside metro areas" is not
>the case, not everywhere. T-Mobile has had service in my parents'
>rural town in the middle of nowhere in Northeast Ohio, for example,
>since they launched their Cleveland network in 2001(ish), shortly after
>the VoiceStream rebranding. They were even able to give my brother a
>number local to the town, a Claridon Twp. exchange (Claridon's also
>extremely rural, and Cingular was the only other carrier with local
>numbers there at the time.)
Is it NATIVE coverage, or coverage using anothe carrier
(AT&T/Cingular)?
I've been in rural northeastern Kansas several times to visit
relatives. Its either Alltel for CDMA, Dobson Cell One for GSM. That's
it. No AT&T or T-Mobile for miles.
>And on my plan, with my quad-band phone, I will roam for free on
>Cingular when necessary. But I haven't had to roam yet...
Again, you visit places where I don't visit.
>> Overall, Verizon is the best of the bad companies out there that
>> provides near nationwide service.
>
>Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. I attribute that to the fact that they
>started by merging a few already-mature networks, and they have continued to
>build out their network.
Or did build out their network. I think they've stopped. Coverage is
still spotty in a number of places.
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:27:39 -0400, "GolfGod" <golfgod@comcast.net>
wrote:
>Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
>>While I agree that CS is an important part of service, it is not used nearly as much as my plan. I might call CS 5 times a year for an issue, while I use my phone/plan constantly. Compare any Verizon plan to a Sprint SERO plan. Even with horrid CS it works in my favor.
>>Verizon abuses its customers a little bit every day (crippling phones, non-competitive plans), while Sprint really only does that when you need CS. I think Sprint can improve their faults easier than Verizon can remake its business model. Just my opinion.
First of all, you might want to turn on word wrap at 72 characters per
line :-)
But, Sprint also suffers from the 1900 MHz issue. Unless they have
twice the towers that the 850 MHz folks do, coverage is cut in half.]
I've been on vacation where there is no native Sprint service. VZW has
added service where it never had native coverage in the past but now
does. The lower end of the NC Outer Banks is an example of this.
Where I live, Verizon is about the only one that offers decent
service. A friend of mine who has T-Mobile visited me last week. I was
talking him through town to get to my house. Just as he turned down my
street - the call went dead. Yup - a black hole for GSM coverage on my
street. Verizon works pretty well in my town, as they put in a number
of new towers around 2002-2004 timeframe.
Obviously the choice of a carrier depends on what you want out of a
cell phone service. Is rural coverage important? Is coverage at your
house important? Number of minutes per month? Data services? Obviously
people need to do their homework to determine what's right for them.
For me - VZW is about the best of the bad choices out there. I'm not
pleased with any of the services out there.
OT: Landline choices are also not great. Where I live, I can get
Verizon or a CLEC (Cavalier), but I don't know if a CLEC can give me
service since I'm served by a fiber node and not a direct copper pair
to the CO. I stay away from VOIP options as a primary choice.
In article <sf5cb3patj14t27dgo793b5a3g1bptiebi@4ax.com>,
Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:27:39 -0400, "GolfGod" <golfgod@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
>
>>>While I agree that CS is an important part of service, it is not used nearly as much as my plan. I might call CS 5 times a year for an issue, while I use my phone/plan constantly. Compare any Verizon plan to a Sprint SERO plan. Even with horrid CS it works in my favor.
>>>Verizon abuses its customers a little bit every day (crippling phones, non-competitive plans), while Sprint really only does that when you need CS. I think Sprint can improve their faults easier than Verizon can remake its business model. Just my opinion.
>
>First of all, you might want to turn on word wrap at 72 characters per
>line :-)
>
>But, Sprint also suffers from the 1900 MHz issue. Unless they have
>twice the towers that the 850 MHz folks do, coverage is cut in half.]
>
>I've been on vacation where there is no native Sprint service. VZW has
>added service where it never had native coverage in the past but now
>does. The lower end of the NC Outer Banks is an example of this.
>
>Where I live, Verizon is about the only one that offers decent
>service. A friend of mine who has T-Mobile visited me last week. I was
>talking him through town to get to my house. Just as he turned down my
>street - the call went dead. Yup - a black hole for GSM coverage on my
>street. Verizon works pretty well in my town, as they put in a number
>of new towers around 2002-2004 timeframe.
Again, can the T-Mobile/GSM service be validated by a 1900 Mhz-only phone
or a dual-frequency 850 Mhz/1900 Mhz phone? T-Mobile is native 1900 Mhz,
but if the phone needs to roam on 850 Mhz, but doesn't cover that
frequency, coverage will be lost.
Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-08-05, Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:27:29 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
>> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly, and that's the only way VZW will get the point. It's easy enough to
>>> do, especially now that you can port your number.
>> Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
>
>> AT&T/Cingular? Just as bad. I stay away from their stores like the
>> plague!
>>
>> T-Mobile? I don't think so. No coverage outside metro areas.
>
> That is untrue. As you know, I use T-Mobile. I agree 100% that
> T-Mobile's coverage still needs some work to get up to the level of
> the other carriers. However, "no coverage outside metro areas" is not
> the case, not everywhere. T-Mobile has had service in my parents'
> rural town in the middle of nowhere in Northeast Ohio, for example,
> since they launched their Cleveland network in 2001(ish), shortly after
> the VoiceStream rebranding. They were even able to give my brother a
> number local to the town, a Claridon Twp. exchange (Claridon's also
> extremely rural, and Cingular was the only other carrier with local
> numbers there at the time.)
>
> That's only one example. There are others.
Tmobile has next to zero coverage outside my metropolitan area (we are
in a top 50 market). Most of the tmobile stores have even disappeared
here because as you probably know they don't get the commission unless
someone actually keeps the phone.
>
> And on my plan, with my quad-band phone, I will roam for free on
> Cingular when necessary. But I haven't had to roam yet...
>
>> Overall, Verizon is the best of the bad companies out there that
>> provides near nationwide service.
>
> Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. I attribute that to the fact that they
> started by merging a few already-mature networks, and they have continued to
> build out their network.
>
>
On 2007-08-05, Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:27:39 -0400, "GolfGod" <golfgod@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
>
>>>While I agree that CS is an important part of service, it is not used nearly as much as my plan. I might call CS 5 times a year for an issue, while I use my phone/plan constantly. Compare any Verizon plan to a Sprint SERO plan. Even with horrid CS it works in my favor.
>>>Verizon abuses its customers a little bit every day (crippling phones, non-competitive plans), while Sprint really only does that when you need CS. I think Sprint can improve their faults easier than Verizon can remake its business model. Just my opinion.
>
> First of all, you might want to turn on word wrap at 72 characters per
> line :-)
>
> But, Sprint also suffers from the 1900 MHz issue. Unless they have
> twice the towers that the 850 MHz folks do, coverage is cut in half.]
>
> I've been on vacation where there is no native Sprint service. VZW has
> added service where it never had native coverage in the past but now
> does. The lower end of the NC Outer Banks is an example of this.
I'm not quite sure what this proves. I've also travelled to places recently
that have good native Sprint coverage, but no native Verizon service.
Stevens Point, WI (54481) is one of them, San Angelo, TX (76901) is
another. St. Thomas, USVI, is a third; Sprint has native coverage,
Verizon now charges $0.69/minute for "international" roaming on Sprint
(it used to be free).
In fact, while Verizon's native coverage might be a little broader
than Sprint's, Verizon's gradual cutback on free "extended network"
domestic roaming coverage (particularly on Sprint and on Cingular AMPS,
it seems) has made Sprint at least as good a bet if you want a phone that
just works (roaming or not) when travelling. Where Sprint has no native
coverage it seems like they'll roam on anything available while Verizon,
if they don't like the operators available, will just let you do without.
Even in the hills close to my house, close to 94020, there are spots
where Sprint still seems to provide AMPS roaming that Verizon has dropped
in favor of nothing.
I'm sure cutting back on domestic roaming coverage improves Verizon's
bottom line, but it doesn't help me so much.
> Where I live, Verizon is about the only one that offers decent
> service. A friend of mine who has T-Mobile visited me last week. I was
> talking him through town to get to my house. Just as he turned down my
> street - the call went dead. Yup - a black hole for GSM coverage on my
> street. Verizon works pretty well in my town, as they put in a number
> of new towers around 2002-2004 timeframe.
I guess so. Where I live Sprint probably has more coverage holes than
Verizon, but in more densely populated places Verizon seems to have more
difficulties that I associate with network capacity problems, e.g. incoming
calls that go directly to voicemail when I have all-bar service, dropped
calls, etc. I have Verizon service since I have a (now-grandfathered)
plan which pays for itself, but if I were choosing service based solely
on coverage and performance where I live and travel domestically, and the
cost of that service, this would be a much closer choice. Cingular
service (which I also have) has improved significantly where I live
since I've had it, and even T-Mobile has become decent for the price.
"Scott Ehrlich" <scott@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:46b61f09$0$502$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> In article <sf5cb3patj14t27dgo793b5a3g1bptiebi@4ax.com>,
> Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:27:39 -0400, "GolfGod" <golfgod@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Who would you port to? Sprint? Yeah, right. Customer DISservice.
>>
>>>>While I agree that CS is an important part of service, it is not used
>>>>nearly as much as my plan. I might call CS 5 times a year for an issue,
>>>>while I use my phone/plan constantly. Compare any Verizon plan to a
>>>>Sprint SERO plan. Even with horrid CS it works in my favor.
>>>>Verizon abuses its customers a little bit every day (crippling phones,
>>>>non-competitive plans), while Sprint really only does that when you need
>>>>CS. I think Sprint can improve their faults easier than Verizon can
>>>>remake its business model. Just my opinion.
>>
>>First of all, you might want to turn on word wrap at 72 characters per
>>line :-)
>>
>>But, Sprint also suffers from the 1900 MHz issue. Unless they have
>>twice the towers that the 850 MHz folks do, coverage is cut in half.]
>>
>>I've been on vacation where there is no native Sprint service. VZW has
>>added service where it never had native coverage in the past but now
>>does. The lower end of the NC Outer Banks is an example of this.
>>
>>Where I live, Verizon is about the only one that offers decent
>>service. A friend of mine who has T-Mobile visited me last week. I was
>>talking him through town to get to my house. Just as he turned down my
>>street - the call went dead. Yup - a black hole for GSM coverage on my
>>street. Verizon works pretty well in my town, as they put in a number
>>of new towers around 2002-2004 timeframe.
>
> Again, can the T-Mobile/GSM service be validated by a 1900 Mhz-only phone
> or a dual-frequency 850 Mhz/1900 Mhz phone? T-Mobile is native 1900 Mhz,
> but if the phone needs to roam on 850 Mhz, but doesn't cover that
> frequency, coverage will be lost.
>
> Scott
Here in FL Verizon is also 1900Mhz so coverage in my home area
is pretty much moot. Roaming up the entire Eastern seaboard,
granted pretty much on major roads, I've seen no difference in
coverage between the two. Never drop calls on either. Verizon's CS is
stellar compared to Sprint, it's just the features and phones that Sprint
offers that make the difference to me. Sorry about the word wrap, my last
post was in rich text
On 2007-08-05, Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>extremely rural, and Cingular was the only other carrier with local
>>numbers there at the time.)
>
> Is it NATIVE coverage, or coverage using anothe carrier
> (AT&T/Cingular)?
It's native. It's supposedly native all the way out to the Pennsylvania
state line, a very lightly populated area...
> I've been in rural northeastern Kansas several times to visit
> relatives. Its either Alltel for CDMA, Dobson Cell One for GSM. That's
> it. No AT&T or T-Mobile for miles.
I'm not saying it's like this everywhere.
>>Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. I attribute that to the fact that they
>>started by merging a few already-mature networks, and they have continued to
>>build out their network.
>
> Or did build out their network. I think they've stopped. Coverage is
> still spotty in a number of places.
Yes. Verizon coverage in Ashtabula County, Ohio, northeast of the empty area
where my parents live, sucks ***, even in the city of Ashtabula. But then,
back in 2004 I said that was a symptom of VZW ignoring smaller outlying areas
around major cities -- the examples I gave were here in Victorville, CA., and
in Akron, OH and Fort Campbell, KY -- and I still believe that to be true.
Meanwhile, carriers with "lousy" coverage like Sprint covered Ashtabula just
fine.
On 2007-08-05, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Tmobile has next to zero coverage outside my metropolitan area (we are
> in a top 50 market). Most of the tmobile stores have even disappeared
> here because as you probably know they don't get the commission unless
> someone actually keeps the phone.
> And on my plan, with my quad-band phone, I will roam for free on
> Cingular when necessary. But I haven't had to roam yet...
To be fair, you can only roam on Cingular in select areas- generally
those are where T-Mo has no native coverage.
In areas T-Mo serves poorly, like Omaha, NE, and parts of the Bay Area, I
can't switch to Cingular- my phone can't register on Cingular if I try
switching.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:30:48 -0600, Frankster wrote:
> Things have changed. MOU is no longer. If you want to tether a phone to
> connect to the Internet via Laptop the charge is now $59.95/mo. Period.
> However, the good news is that you can use Bluetooth or a cable. Actually,
> no "office kit" is required either. Just gotta have a cable (from ebay or
> wherever).
>
> -Frank
Only true if you use EVDO. You can still connect at 1xRTT for MOU.
> I have had my account for 4 years now and I just renewed it for two more
> years. I had with it, "National Access", MOU, "Minutes only used". I would
> take my LG 4650 and the office kit for it that Verizon sold me and I would
> tether to my laptop and a few times a month when I was away from home, I
> would check my email. It usually took less than a minute.
>
> When I renewed my contract I got a LG VX5300 from Verizon. Now I wanted to
> check my email again as I have for the past 4 years. Instead of using the
> Office Kit I used the bluetooth DUN capabilities of the phone together with
> VZAccess manager and when I attempted this, my authentication was refused. I
> called support and I was told the network would not allow me to connect in
> this manner. I was informed that I would have to buy another "Office Kit"
> for this phone and I would have to use the cable to connect.
>
> I felt I was deceived and I may have took it out on the support person and I
> regret that. However, one can understand the way I felt if you look at the
> advertisement for the phone at VERIZON'S webpage. Under "Features" it says
> Bluetooth capable* and then adds "*The VX5300 supports the Headset,
> Hands-free, Serial Port, Dial Up Networking and Object Push profiles for
> vCard."
>
> If the network does not allow a Bluetooth DUN connection, then why do they
> advertise it? If the phone can only work on Verizon's network and Verizon's
> network does not allow the connection, then how can they claim that the
> phone has that capability? It clearly DOES NOT!
>
> Please tell me if I am misinformed or if I am not understanding something
> correctly.
>
> Oh! Did I mention that they don't list an office kit for the VX5300?
>
>
I was told several times over a period of a year or more that if I
changed my service at all, I would lose Quick-To-Net. Well, finally,
push came to shove and we got new phones and a USB cable for them.
My Quick-To-Net service is gone (#777) but I can call my ISP's number
and it works just fine. I knew this sortof through a neighbor where we
have remote cabins as he had a modern Verizon phone that he can use for
his e-mail.
Most other providers either have less service or charge for data calls
separately (or both) so I am sticking with Verizon.
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:33:24 -0600, Charles wrote:
> My Quick-To-Net service is gone (#777) but I can call my ISP's number
> and it works just fine. I knew this sortof through a neighbor where we
> have remote cabins as he had a modern Verizon phone that he can use for
> his e-mail.
You can use an ISP dialup number for MOU, but it will connect at a slow 14.4
kbps.
Not clear on phone capabilities 
on a sch-a650 on verizon 1xrtt
Linear Mode
