Hello,
I'd love to switch over Verizon, however according to Verizon my phone
number cannot be ported. They said that they don't have a license in
that area. Is there anything I can do, short of changing my cell
phone number? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks everyone,
Brian
> They said that they don't have a license in
> that area.
They don't want your business if it's gonna be all roaming all the time at
their expense with no license in your area. So, as usual, they make up a
good cover story and lie to you that the number can't be ported.
Noone is going to offer you service where they don't have native service on
their own system except a reseller, of course.
Larry
--
VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
NOONE will be spared!
On Feb 12, 11:53 am, Larry <n...@home.com> wrote:
> newsletterexcha...@gmail.com wrote in news:1171257431.979630.37820
> @l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > They said that they don't have a license in
> > that area.
>
> They don't want your business if it's gonna be all roaming all the time at
> their expense with no license in your area. So, as usual, they make up a
> good cover story and lie to you that the number can't be ported.
>
> Noone is going to offer you service where they don't have native service on
> their own system except a reseller, of course.
>
> Larry
> --
> VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
> NOONE will be spared!
Thanks for the reply. That makes sense now... Thanks again.
Brian
Just maybe, since they don't have a license, there isn't a switch
in the area to port to? That they actually gave him the facts???
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns98D58330853A6noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> newsletterexchange@gmail.com wrote in news:1171257431.979630.37820
> @l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> They said that they don't have a license in
>> that area.
>
> They don't want your business if it's gonna be all roaming all the time at
> their expense with no license in your area. So, as usual, they make up a
> good cover story and lie to you that the number can't be ported.
>
> Noone is going to offer you service where they don't have native service on
> their own system except a reseller, of course.
>
> Larry
> --
> VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
> NOONE will be spared!
Call Forwarding your old phone to the new Verizon phone would get you the
calls, while you notify everyone of your new number.
<newsletterexchange@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171257431.979630.37820@l53g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello,
> I'd love to switch over Verizon, however according to Verizon my phone
> number cannot be ported. They said that they don't have a license in
> that area. Is there anything I can do, short of changing my cell
> phone number? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks everyone,
> Brian
>
On Feb 11, 10:17 pm, newsletterexcha...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
> I'd love to switch over Verizon, however according to Verizon my phone
> number cannot be ported. They said that they don't have a license in
> that area. Is there anything I can do, short of changing my cell
> phone number? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks everyone,
> Brian
As a VZW agent there are several guidelines that have to be followed
to port a number. And these guidelines are set up by the software we
use, but I have never heard the statement 'We don't have a license in
that area' . And I don't believe it.
1. the number must be in the account holders name. This prevents you
from porting someone else number.
2. the number must be in the same district. such as Pacific, Midwest,
Eastern. Example if you move to Washington state, you can't port a
number from your house in Atlanta. If you moved to Boston you could or
if you used to live in Flagstaff AZ and moved to Seattle you could.
3. you should have a copy of the old bill so that we can get the
actual account number of of it.
And did you talk to a VZW agent, company store, on the phone or a sub
agent? Some of the sub agents can't do things the agent can do and the
company stores can do things a agent can't do. And sometimes when you
call VZW you get someone who doesn't have the faintest idea what they
are talking about. For the last, I just call back and get someone else.
On Feb 14, 9:04 am, "EdC" <kc7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 10:17 pm, newsletterexcha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > I'd love to switch over Verizon, however according to Verizon my phone
> > number cannot be ported. They said that they don't have a license in
> > that area. Is there anything I can do, short of changing my cell
> > phone number? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
> > Thanks everyone,
> > Brian
>
> As a VZW agent there are several guidelines that have to be followed
> to port a number. And these guidelines are set up by the software we
> use, but I have never heard the statement 'We don't have a license in
> that area' . And I don't believe it.
> 1. the number must be in the account holders name. This prevents you
> from porting someone else number.
> 2. the number must be in the same district. such as Pacific, Midwest,
> Eastern. Example if you move to Washington state, you can't port a
> number from your house in Atlanta. If you moved to Boston you could or
> if you used to live in Flagstaff AZ and moved to Seattle you could.
> 3. you should have a copy of the old bill so that we can get the
> actual account number of of it.
>
> And did you talk to a VZW agent, company store, on the phone or a sub
> agent? Some of the sub agents can't do things the agent can do and the
> company stores can do things a agent can't do. And sometimes when you
> call VZW you get someone who doesn't have the faintest idea what they
> are talking about. For the last, I just call back and get someone else.
Hello,
I talked to Verizon by phone and email. I've been told a couple
different things and the latest is below. I'm looking at having our
whole family switch to Verizon.
1. My son has his own number and that is in his name. That is not an
issue in this case.
2. This is all in the state of Minnesota.
3. My son is with Sprint still, so I have all the copies of billing/
account information. He's not going to switch unless Verizon will
port his number. That is what we are stuck on.
This is the latest below
Upon reviewing your sons' number in being able to be ported, I am
showing that his number is from a market that is not included in the
top 100 markets where porting is permitted. Also in the market that
his cellular number originates from, Verizon Wireless does not provide
service in that area.
<newsletterexchange@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171491969.279700.176410@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> Upon reviewing your sons' number in being able to be ported, I am
> showing that his number is from a market that is not included in the
> top 100 markets where porting is permitted. Also in the market that
> his cellular number originates from, Verizon Wireless does not provide
> service in that area.
The FCC mandate for number portability includes a few restrictions and a
time line for its implementation. Briefly, subscribers with billing
addresses in the top 100 U.S. population centers (called MSAs) are be able
to take their numbers with them after November 24, 2003. People in the rest
of the U.S. have this freedom six months later after May 24, 2004.
In article <Xns98DF83074B507noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
> "Topo Gigio" <thistooshall@pass.com> wrote in news:n_iDh.4873$EU.4561
> @trnddc07:
>
>> People in the rest
>> of the U.S. have this freedom six months later after May 24, 2004.
>>
>
> Hmm...my calendar says Feb 22, 2007. Even Verizon should have realized
> this by now!
So Verizon should port the number and give him service even though
they don't provide service in his area?
Right. The FCC mandated that you should be able to port between
existing carriers' networks.
I fail to see where the problem is here. The OP can always port their
number to a carrier that DOES provide service in that particular area.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnetruqp.lu2.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
> So Verizon should port the number and give him service even though
> they don't provide service in his area?
>
>
Let's make a deal.......
Let's FORCE them ALL to provide service to anyone who asks for it, with
number portability, in ALL THE SHADED AREAS ON THEIR COVERAGE MAPS!
Now, we all know the coverage maps are all a blatant lie on any carrier,
a pipe dream. So, maybe if we FORCE them to actually PROVIDE service
where these maps say they have service....just maybe....the maps will
become a little more truthful, to the benefit of the consumer, of course,
and the consumer will stop asking silly questions about wanting service
from XYZ Cellular And Tire in Peoria, just because XYZ's coverage map
shows they have solid red coverage all across Peoria.
Just like the rest of them, Verizon Wireless' footprint is actually quite
small, just the size of the licensed network providers Verizon has bought
service from. If Verizon doesn't want to sell him service in Peoria
where they don't have a contractor providing service, then that needs to
show on a truthful map that Verizon is just roaming on Farmer's Cellular
and Tractor's system in Peoria.
Hell, if anyone looks at a Verizon map, it looks like the whole goddamned
country is covered with towers under a Verizon logo! It's not.
In article <Xns98DFA1E4EE2BDnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
> Let's make a deal.......
>
> Let's FORCE them ALL to provide service to anyone who asks for it, with
> number portability, in ALL THE SHADED AREAS ON THEIR COVERAGE MAPS!
So you're saying they should provide coverage in an area where they
aren't LEGALLY ALLOWED to provide coverage.
And I looked at the thread in Google Groups. Nowhere do I see any
claim that Verizon made the REPRESENTATION that they had service in
that area.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnetsnnf.h3n.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
> In article <Xns98DFA1E4EE2BDnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
>
>> Let's make a deal.......
>>
>> Let's FORCE them ALL to provide service to anyone who asks for it, with
>> number portability, in ALL THE SHADED AREAS ON THEIR COVERAGE MAPS!
>
> So you're saying they should provide coverage in an area where they
> aren't LEGALLY ALLOWED to provide coverage.
>
> And I looked at the thread in Google Groups. Nowhere do I see any
> claim that Verizon made the REPRESENTATION that they had service in
> that area.
>
>
Read it again, Steve....Try not to twist it around this time.
If you claim you have service in Peoria, you need to PROVIDE SERVICE in
Peoria to anyone who wants it. Take Peoria out of the coverage map and
stop claiming you cover Peoria and you don't have to provide service in
Peoria to anyone. A geek of your stature can understand that...right?
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:54:38 -0500, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
>news:slrnetruqp.lu2.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.ne t:
>
>> So Verizon should port the number and give him service even though
>> they don't provide service in his area?
>>
>>
>
>Let's make a deal.......
>
>Let's FORCE them ALL to provide service to anyone who asks for it, with
>number portability, in ALL THE SHADED AREAS ON THEIR COVERAGE MAPS!
>
>Now, we all know the coverage maps are all a blatant lie on any carrier,
>a pipe dream. So, maybe if we FORCE them to actually PROVIDE service
>where these maps say they have service....just maybe....the maps will
>become a little more truthful, to the benefit of the consumer, of course,
>and the consumer will stop asking silly questions about wanting service
>from XYZ Cellular And Tire in Peoria, just because XYZ's coverage map
>shows they have solid red coverage all across Peoria.
But you see, the problem here is that they do provide service to VZW
customers when they are in that area, they just can't sell service
based out of a local exchange there. As usual, you are trying to
twist separate issues into one to support your tired, old rants.
Changing the coverage area and/or maps will do nothing in this case.
The OP would need to get a VZW number in an area where they sell
service, then he could use their service in his area.
>
>Just like the rest of them, Verizon Wireless' footprint is actually quite
>small, just the size of the licensed network providers Verizon has bought
>service from. If Verizon doesn't want to sell him service in Peoria
>where they don't have a contractor providing service, then that needs to
>show on a truthful map that Verizon is just roaming on Farmer's Cellular
>and Tractor's system in Peoria.
Coverage maps <> areas where service can be sold. What part of that
do you not understand?
>Hell, if anyone looks at a Verizon map, it looks like the whole goddamned
>country is covered with towers under a Verizon logo! It's not.
But if you have VZW service, you can reasonably expect that map to
represent the areas where they have native coverage or roaming
agreements in effect. The OP is talking about apples while you are
ranting about oranges. Again.
> Let's make a deal.......
>
> Let's FORCE them ALL to provide service to anyone who asks for it, with
> number portability, in ALL THE SHADED AREAS ON THEIR COVERAGE MAPS!
Why? The maps show where you can USE your phone- not where you can buy
one!
> Now, we all know the coverage maps are all a blatant lie on any
> carrier, a pipe dream.
No, the current trend is to show very accurate street level coverage maps
(check out Cingular's and T-Mobile's for examples) that use different
colors/patterns to indicate "partner"/roaming coverage. Sorry, I guess
> Verizon hasn't kept up with the times.
> Just like the rest of them, Verizon Wireless' footprint is actually
> quite small, just the size of the licensed network providers Verizon
> has bought service from.
So you'd rather they not contract with other carriers and leave travelers
out in the cold?
> If Verizon doesn't want to sell him service in Peoria
> where they don't have a contractor providing service, then that needs
to
> show on a truthful map that Verizon is just roaming on Farmer's
> Cellular and Tractor's system in Peoria.
Again, if you actually read the map, it tells you where you'll have
service- it doesn't claim to be a map of available exchanges!
> Hell, if anyone looks at a Verizon map, it looks like the whole
> goddamned country is covered with towers under a Verizon logo!
> It's not.
No, it looks like you can use your phone almost anywhere in the "whole GD
country" and that's not that far from the truth...
In article <Xns98E02C1EA5E8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
> Read it again, Steve....Try not to twist it around this time.
Whatever.
> If you claim you have service in Peoria, you need to PROVIDE SERVICE in
> Peoria to anyone who wants it. Take Peoria out of the coverage map and
> stop claiming you cover Peoria and you don't have to provide service in
> Peoria to anyone. A geek of your stature can understand that...right?
Sure. I even agree with it.
Now go back and read the start of the thread. I was saying "where did
the original poster say that a claim was made regarding coverage in
the new area?" I missed the thread here on the newsgroups, so I found
the thread on Google Groups.
Now, if the OP says he checked the coverage map and Verizon says they
have native coverage, fine. If Verizon didn't claim native coverage in
that area, I *still* can't figure out what the problem is.
Believe me, Larry. I'm on T-Mobile these days. Customer service is top
notch and pricing is very sharp. But there are a couple coverage holes
I'd like to have filled. And when I moved to California, I was renting
a house on the edge of town where only Sprint had any decent coverage.
So I'd like to see all of the carriers expand their coverage, just as
you would. But to turn this to your point of view... You repair and
tune pianos, right? Or is it organs? Ok, whichever, doesn't matter.
Say I need your services. So I call you in Camden, tell you I'm in
Victorville...
"Victorville, SC? Can you give me directions?"
"No, sorry, Victorville, CA."
What's your response going to be?
If I expect you to do anything other than
-- tell me you can't service me, or
-- tell me you CAN, "and here are my travel expenses, you're going
to have to pay them"
then I'm an idiot.
My point is, it is a financial/economic decision for you. If I don't
agree to pay for plane fare/hotel/whatever other incidental expenses
you incur, then should I expect you to service me? Probably not. You'd
have to charge me for dozens of hours of labor to even turn a profit.
Likewise, the carriers made decisions about what to cover. Even
Verizon has decent-sized markets that they don't cover, and they have
native coverage over a pretty sizable chunk of the country. Oklahoma City
and Little Rock are two such markets. Go to Little Rock with a VZW
phone, and you'll be roaming on Alltel. (Been there, done that.)
Yes, in a perfect world, I'd like to see a lot more wireless coverage
too. Unfortunately, we have to deal with reality.
> Is the map RED in that area showing coverage?
I didn't see the part of the thread where the OP indicated what area
of the country he was in.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnetuhfh.qrc.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
> Yes, in a perfect world, I'd like to see a lot more wireless coverage
> too. Unfortunately, we have to deal with reality.
>
It's very simple to accomplish. WE, the people, through our FCC who
issue them licenses to operate on OUR airwaves, simply inform them ALL
that they must provide smooth coverage across their entire license area,
not just in the city profit centers, and leave it up to the cellular
industry moguls how they will accomplish our REQUIREMENTS.
They can:
1 - Put up more native towers close enough together to provide coverage
across the country to the shitty 150 mw toyphones that, currently, have a
reliable range of 1-2 miles, less in the foliage.
2 - COORDINATE with the other members of their national cartel to put up
a lot less native towers across the country and SHARE them, a situation
where everybody wins, the companies and the consumers.
3 - Turn in their licenses so they can be re-issued to someone who will
meet these REQUIREMENTS.
It's fairly simple. They'll all have to quit acting like assholes to
each other, and to us, and share resources to the benefit of all....or
go off the air after FCC's enforcement bureau takes their profits to
reduce our debt to the Illuminati bankers at the Federal Reserve
Corporation.
We gave them YEARS AND YEARS to erect the infrastructure they promised us
to provide good service if we gave them a license. That time is WELL
PAST and they have not done so. So, it's way past time to institute the
same "Proof of Performance" standards imposed on other licensees, such as
broadcasters. Each year an independent engineering firm does a Proof of
Performance audit of every radio station in the country to prove to the
FCC that the station is providing a certain level of coverage to the
public who own the airwaves the public has licensed them to operate on at
a considerable profit, just like cellular. The cost of this is part of
doing broadcast business. It's way past time the cellular cartel should
be proving itself. We all know there's no way they can pass the test.
They concentrate the infrastructure where the greatest profit is and to
hell with the rest of the licensed area. It is government's duty, as
licensor, to "encourage" compliance.....(c;
In article <Xns98E0E07F1CEB2noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
> It's very simple to accomplish. WE, the people, through our FCC who
> issue them licenses to operate on OUR airwaves, simply inform them ALL
> that they must provide smooth coverage across their entire license area,
*cough*
Hey Larry.
The original problem was that VERIZON DIDN'T HAVE A LICENSE IN THE
POSTER'S NEW LOCATION.
How does requiring smooth coverage across the entire license area fix
that?
> It's fairly simple. They'll all have to quit acting like assholes to
> each other, and to us
OK, but this has nothing to do with the original post. If they don't
have a license in Podunk, Idaho, requiring coverage in their licensed
area does NOTHING to help that.
Oh, and you really think the FCC enforces its "public interest" rules
on broadcasters? If so, Clear Channel Radio wouldn't be operating
stations in small markets where they fire at least half the local air
staff and replace them with syndicated crap. But that's a rant for
another newsgroup.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
On Feb 24, 12:32 pm, "Steven J. Sobol" <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote:
> In article <Xns98E0E0CAF752Enoonehome...@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
> > Absolutely not! See my other post to Steven on this thread. They should
> > all share resources to provide coverage to all. FCC can make that happen.
>
> Again, I don't disagree with you.
>
> But your solution does NOT solve the original poster's problem.
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek **.E35ED
>
> It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
Hehe, quite the debate here guys. I should have joined in the debate
earlier. Nothing has changed, they don't have a license in that
particular area. So, our family hasn't switched over to verizon.
Hopefully things will change in the near future.
Thanks everyone,
Brian
Number cannot be ported... 
Linear Mode
