Re: How different are AC1 and AC2 these days?

Reidster,
Unfortunately, the Coverage Locator has not been updated for new partner
coverage. There are a number of areas added since AC II was created.
Where would you be traveling in the west? New coverage has been added for
Commnet, Union, UBET and a few others that show in the AC II PRL, but not on
the map. New Verizon coverage is added quickly, but roaming agreements are
not updated as regularly.

-Bill Radio


"Reid Priedhorsky" <reid@reidster.net> wrote in message
newsan.2006.09.09.17.32.59.444318@reidster.net.. .
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm currently on AC1. I called CS to inquire whether I would be required
> to "upgrade" to AC2 if I took advantage of my NE2.
>
> As Bill Radio predicted in response to my earlier query, after much
> wrangling the answer seemed to be "yes". Furthermore, the rep claimed that
> the *only* difference between AC1 and AC2 was the roaming charge, i.e.
> there was nowhere that changed from roaming to no service.
>
> When AC2 first came out, this claim was hogwash, most notably in the rural
> West, which is important to me. Have things changed much recently? Is
> there a site out there detailing differences?
>
> I assume if I raise enough of a stink, I can keep my $35 AC1 plan, but
> that's not a fight I relish getting into.
>
> Thanks again for any help,
>
> Reid

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:32:29 -0600, Bill Radio wrote:

> Reidster,
> Unfortunately, the Coverage Locator has not been updated for new partner
> coverage. There are a number of areas added since AC II was created.
> Where would you be traveling in the west? New coverage has been added for
> Commnet, Union, UBET and a few others that show in the AC II PRL, but not on
> the map. New Verizon coverage is added quickly, but roaming agreements are
> not updated as regularly.

Well, the place where I saw the most dramatic change important to me was
southern Utah -- huge swaths changed from "roaming/no service" to plain
"no service" (though I do wonder what that means). Another e.g. was the
recent thread regarding the South Rim of the Grand Canyon -- service
available with some voodoo under AC1, for pay, but none at all under AC2.

Now, full disclosure is that I've never actually needed to roam out there.
So, it could be my concerns are moot anyway. However, I think there is a
philosophical issue here: I resent having options taken away because
others have a hard time using them. Why not just keep the AC1 model and
ship phones with a "never roam" toggle? It could even default to on for
all I care. (Not that I expect others to have similar resentment -- this
is just how I feel.)

I did the upgrade online, and there was no mention of changing plans. So,
we will see what will happen.

Thanks again for your help, all.

Reid

Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:32:29 -0600, Bill Radio wrote:
>
>> Reidster,
>> Unfortunately, the Coverage Locator has not been updated
>> for new partner coverage. There are a number of areas
>> added since AC II was created.
>> Where would you be traveling in the west? New coverage
>> has been added for Commnet, Union, UBET and a few others
>> that show in the AC II PRL, but not on the map. New
>> Verizon coverage is added quickly, but roaming
>> agreements are not updated as regularly.
>
> Well, the place where I saw the most dramatic change
> important to me was southern Utah -- huge swaths changed
> from "roaming/no service" to plain "no service" (though I
> do wonder what that means). Another e.g. was the recent
> thread regarding the South Rim of the Grand Canyon --
> service available with some voodoo under AC1, for pay,
> but none at all under AC2.
>
> Now, full disclosure is that I've never actually needed
> to roam out there. So, it could be my concerns are moot
> anyway. However, I think there is a philosophical issue
> here: I resent having options taken away because others
> have a hard time using them. Why not just keep the AC1
> model and ship phones with a "never roam" toggle? It
> could even default to on for all I care. (Not that I
> expect others to have similar resentment -- this is just
> how I feel.)

I'm sure only part of it (probably a very small part) is
customers having problems/understanding or abusing
unintentional roaming. Probably a much greater issue
is the overhead associated with billing. Dealing with a
multitude of roaming "partners" all with different billing
systems, rates, delayed billing, etc. Much more efficient
to deal with a fixed (much smaller) number of roaming
partners all of whom comply with procedures, conforming
billing systems, etc. Then there is the time with CS,
disputes, misunderstandings, and abuse. Lots of overhead.

So the "never roam" toggle would defeat much of the
savings. It doesn't matter if the manual says "NEVER
use this toggle because you will be held liable, possibly
charged huge amounts and it may or may not show on
the bill covering the time the feature was used".
Doesn't matter. If it's provided people *will* use,
abuse, and misunderstand it. They will also hold the
provider responsible for anything that came of it.

-Quick