Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

SMS wrote:
>
> In areas where both carriers have coverage, roaming is often blocked
> by the PRL. Where it isn't blocked by the PRL by Sprint, you have to
> set the phone to "roaming only" in order to get coverage in areas
> where Sprint lacks coverage.

How many times are you gonna contradict yourself in one thread? Remember
writing this:

SMS wrote:
> It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
> phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.

The above was in response to someone informing you that most Sprint phones
can be forced to digital roam, where you wrote this:

SMS wrote:
> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).

So in one thread you went from:
1.) Sprint doesn't let you roam at will on Verizon.

2.) Sprint will let you roam at will, but only if the PRL allows it.

3.) Sprint will let you roam at will regardless of the PRL but you have to
set the phone to roaming only as their automatic roaming sucks.

Did you think no one was paying attention?


> If Sprint could offer 100% automatic
> roaming, then they'd have done better than Verizon in all the
> surveys, rather than consistently being rate last.

You do sound like a lot Navas. Now you're trying to make it appear as if
customer service equals coverage, when backed into a corner.

And for what? My report about lack of Verizon coverage in 86403 wasn't a
slam against Verizon per se. It was meant to sarcastically show how absurd
these little anecdotal reports actually are. In fact I don't care if your
phone worked while skiing, driving down a mountainous rural state highway,
or even in your own home. Call me selfish but what matters to me is that my
phones work where I am at.


--
Mike

SMS wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>>> It shows up with complete digital coverage.
>>
>> From Sprint, not Verizon. You know, like I've been stating all along.
>
> What you don't understand is that Sprint and Verizon have
> cross-roaming agreements for areas where one or the other does not
> have a network presence.

I understand roaming agreements, but I also know that in the real world
things don't always turn out as planned. Kinda like coverage maps.


> It doesn't matter to subscribers (Sprint or
> Verizon) which network they are calling on. It does matter as far as
> EVDO is concerned.

Nope, it mattered with CDMA 1x too. And not being able to receive or send
email did matter to the Verizon subscribers I was with in that area--it
mattered a lot. There can be other issues when roaming as well.

If given the choice I don't know why anyone wouldn't want native coverage.
It does matter.


--
Mike

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently
> excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based their
> whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed the
> coverage superiority.

Navas doesn't agree with you, therefore you have got to be wrong.

At 28 Dec 2007 07:57:54 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:


> They've consistently excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers,
> and they based their
> whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed
> the coverage superiority.



Or confirmed their perceived superiority based on a brilliant ad campaign.

Seriously, AT&T's coverage these days are an amalgam on legacy 800MHz
carriers; Cingular (the old SBMS), Bell South, (the old) ATTWS, etc., just
like Verizon. While it's true their current GSM customers can't roam on
AMPS, neither can most Verizon customers these days if they have recent
phones with any but the most basic features. AT&T's 800MHz network is well
built-out nationwide and their coverage isn't as piss-poor as you seem to
think.

When I visited the Bay Area last summer, I had very "gappy" coverage with T-
Mo (using the old Cingular/Pac-Bell 1900MHz network.) Just for laughs,
however, virtually everytime I had no service, I did a system scan and
good old "AT&T Blue" network popped up (but the T-Mo SIM wouldn't let me
actually
use it!)

I never found an area that had no AT&T service except in some deep woods
(although, as a tourist, I never strayed as far off the beaten path as you
do.)

Without any other data, market forces alone make your supposition hard to
support- if AT&T service was as bad as you think, a very large portion of
their 60+ million (or 50+ million "retail") customers would've gone
elsewhere by now, since AT&T doesn't represent a significant price
advantage vs. Verizon, like, say, Sprint and T-Mobile do.

DTC wrote:
> SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>> What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently
>> excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based
>> their whole business model on this. Every independent survey has
>> confirmed the coverage superiority.
>
> Navas doesn't agree with you, therefore you have got to be wrong.

LOL, he actually serves a useful purpose, you can be assured that
whatever her says, the opposite is actually true.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> When I visited the Bay Area last summer, I had very "gappy" coverage with T-
> Mo (using the old Cingular/Pac-Bell 1900MHz network.)

Indeed, that's the worst of the worst networks. Earlier this month our
local city council finally approved a tower for the 1900 MHz network not
far from me, so I'll get coverage sometime next year. The effort to
install a tower (and the neighbors efforts to block it) had been going
on for longer than I've lived in this neighborhood, which is eight years
now.

Just for laughs,
> however, virtually everytime I had no service, I did a system scan and
> good old "AT&T Blue" network popped up (but the T-Mo SIM wouldn't let me
> actually
> use it!)

Yes, in most of the bay area the 800 MHz AT&T GSM network is good. There
are still many gaps in some areas, such at the tri-valley area in the
east bay.

> Without any other data, market forces alone make your supposition hard to
> support- if AT&T service was as bad as you think,

I can say that I don't think AT&T service is as bad as the CR data
indicates. But the difference between best and worst as far as CR's
surveys go are not orders of magnitude difference.

none wrote:
> "Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>> I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent
>> magazine article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of
>> Sprint being the one service provider to avoid.
>
> The problem is that all the articles you linked are surveys of
> customer service, not network coverage. I think most of us would
> agree that customer service is the least important factor to consider
> when making a purchase. I've had the best experience with buisnesses
> that provide no customer service at all -- for example, newegg.
>
That's not exactly accurate. While arguably not clear, one of JD Power's
categories in which Verizon excels is "Overall Satisfaction". You can
interpret that how you wish, but I believe that would include satisfaction
with their phone service.

As well, here's a quote from the consumer research citation: "Considering
all factors, reviews say Verizon has the best call quality. Verizon
customers experience fewer dropped calls and circuit overloads than with
other carriers. While plan prices may not be the cheapest, rates are
competitive.". That's not merely "customer service" imho. Nor do I think it
is in yours.

I'm not going to review all of those citations for you but I suggest you
re-read them. Or at least find some citations for me that contradict them.
Without any we're just expressing unsubstantiated opinion, much of which is
dependent upon where we've invested our money. Consumers often have to
justify their choices. Much as I may be doing I suppose... ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 28 Dec 2007 07:57:54 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>
>> They've consistently excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers,
>> and they based their
>> whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed
>> the coverage superiority.
>
>
> Or confirmed their perceived superiority based on a brilliant ad campaign.

Well Cingular had a big ad campaign trying to claim "fewer dropped
calls" but no one believed them, and even the company that did the
survey for them came out and said that the premise of their ad campaign
was incorrect. The AT&T had the "more bars in more places" campaign,
which no one took seriously.

Verizon's ad campaign was successful not because of its brilliance, but
because it jived with the experience of its users. Cingular and AT&T's
ad campaigns failed because every independent survey contradicted the
claims that were made.

Tinman wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>> "Tinman" wrote:
>>>
>>> I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and
>>> never once did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed
>>> after hesitantly switching to AT&T for my main phone this past
>>> summer I have been very impressed with AT&T's coverage--no problem
>>> for me whatsoever. Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the
>>> iPhone. Verizon blew it
>>> on that one big-time.
>>>
>>>
>> Here's the 2007 JD Power review of all cell phone providers. Sprint
>> scored the lowest in all rated areas and in all sections of the
>> country. Guess who scored highest (though granted with not 100%
>> consistency)?
>
> I wrote about network coverage gaps and you came back about customer
> service? How would Verizon's customer service have helped me in an
> area that has no--again, no--Verizon coverage? <shakes head>
>
>
>>
>> I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent
>> magazine article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of
>> Sprint being the one service provider to avoid. I have seen talk in
>> other newsgroups of Sprint possibly going out of business and
>> possibly being absorbed by Verizon. None of what I've read speaks
>> well for Sprint. So you guys can cite your own
>> one-man-in-one-mysterious-spot experiences and feel better about
>> yourselves I suppose, but the facts don't support you.
>
> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area
> that he claimed had only Verizon coverage. You said nothing. Others
> brought up true-life experiences with Sprint, covering a much larger
> area, and you whine? Grow up already, no one insulted one of your
> family--it's cellphone carrier, that's all.
>
> Again: I have had no problems with Sprint, for more than seven years
> now, as far as coverage, phone selection, call quality, and pricing
> are concerned. Yes customer service sucks but that doesn't make the
> other carriers "great." They just happen to suck less in an industry
> that sucks a lot. But you know what? I don't call customer service
> very often, so it doesn't effect me much--certainly not enough to pay
> more money for it.
> I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either.
> Since I have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see
> why I should be impressed with Verizon when they have zero coverage
> in at least one area that I am in all of the time, and they passed up
> the only phone that could have possibly gotten me to switch.
>
You too failed to read the other three citations I gave you. You're picking
and choosing the semantics which suit your argument. Read all of them and
more detail will emerge. It's not me that has to grow up. You're the one
adamantly defending a carrier on the verge of going out of business and
which does have the worst rep for call reliability, whether you want to
accept that or not, and you're on this thread justifying your decision
because why, if I'm the "drama queen"? Perhaps the reason Verizon users are
not jumping in talking about where their coverage was better than the other
carriers is BECAUSE THE LIST WOULD BE TOO LONG! :-)

By the way, while I'm just as disappointed as you that Verizon passed up the
iPhone opportunity, I have to say that if Verizon were an individual person
we would be complimenting their moral character, not criticizing them. Apple
trying to make a deal which cuts into the service provider's revenues is a
bit self-serving and arrogant, I think. Verizon telling them to f___ off is
sort of ballsy, dontcha think?

And last, I might ask you why you think Apple approached Verizon first? It
couldn't be because Sprint was the better choice for them but they wanted to
start at the bottom, could it? :-)

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:4775d4a8$0$84203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 28 Dec 2007 07:57:54 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>>
>>> They've consistently excelled in coverage versus all the other
>>> carriers,
>>> and they based their
>>> whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed
>>> the coverage superiority.
>>
>>
>> Or confirmed their perceived superiority based on a brilliant ad
>> campaign.
>
> Well Cingular had a big ad campaign trying to claim "fewer dropped
> calls" but no one believed them, and even the company that did the
> survey for them came out and said that the premise of their ad
> campaign was incorrect. The AT&T had the "more bars in more places"
> campaign, which no one took seriously.
>
> Verizon's ad campaign was successful not because of its brilliance,
> but because it jived with the experience of its users. Cingular and
> AT&T's ad campaigns failed because every independent survey
> contradicted the claims that were made.
>

No- Verizon's ad campaign was successful because they put a face to the
campaign and drove it into the ground. Just like the iPhone advertising,
people will believe anything. That is, until they experience the downsides
first-hand.

You can quote all the surveys you want, but you need to paint the whole
picture. No carrier has numbers that even rate them in the middle of any
other industry, including Verizon. And that goes for all aspects of the
service. Being the tallest pygmy still makes you a pygmy.

I have now decided that you should be referred to as Navas, Jr. for your
fanboi approach to Verizon. Just like Navas with Cingular/ATT, Verizon can
do no wrong in your eyes.

Tinman wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>>
> Call me
> selfish but what matters to me is that my phones work where I am at.
>
And, finally, this is the best said, and most important, statement of all.
After all, that is all that matters in the end, isn't it? Kudos for hitting
the point on the head..

Scott wrote:

> You can quote all the surveys you want, but you need to paint the whole
> picture. No carrier has numbers that even rate them in the middle of any
> other industry, including Verizon. And that goes for all aspects of the
> service. Being the tallest pygmy still makes you a pygmy.

Comparing the wireless industry to other industries and making
proclamations about how other industries are ranked higher is
meaningless. The only relevant comparison is within a particular
industry. It's especially true in the case of something like wireless
where people's frame of reference is the reliability of their landline,
rather than other wireless communication systems.

> I have now decided that you should be referred to as Navas, Jr. for your
> fanboi approach to Verizon. Just like Navas with Cingular/ATT, Verizon can
> do no wrong in your eyes.

Check some of my earlier posts. Some of things I've criticized them for
include:

-Defeaturing of handsets, including removing the multimedia and file
transfer capability in Motorola Phone Tools

-Removing off-extended network roaming in AC2

-Eliminating holidays as off-peak calling

-Moving from 8pm to 9pm for off-peak calling in the western region

-Increasing prices surreptitiously, by making previously included
features an extra-cost option, then later adding the extra cost back and
incuding the feature again.


I'm not sure what your agenda is in making up these stories. Unlike
Navas, I always provide references for the statements I make. I don't
make stuff up out of thin air like he does.

Tinman wrote:

> And for what? My report about lack of Verizon coverage in 86403 wasn't a
> slam against Verizon per se. It was meant to sarcastically show how absurd
> these little anecdotal reports actually are. In fact I don't care if your
> phone worked while skiing, driving down a mountainous rural state highway,
> or even in your own home. Call me selfish but what matters to me is that my
> phones work where I am at.

Not sure what your agenda is here, but as I proved, Verizon has complete
coverage in 84603.

It's coverage that matters to most cell phone users, as every survey has
shown. Customer service is far down the list, though of course Sprint is
always last in customer service as well.

All of the statements about Sprint were true. You can't roam at will,
unless the PRL allows it, and even then it isn't automatic, for obvious
reasons.

>> I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either.
>> Since I have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see
>> why I should be impressed with Verizon when they have zero coverage
>> in at least one area that I am in all of the time, and they passed up
>> the only phone that could have possibly gotten me to switch.
>>
> You too failed to read the other three citations I gave you. You're picking
> and choosing the semantics which suit your argument. Read all of them and
> more detail will emerge. It's not me that has to grow up. You're the one
> adamantly defending a carrier on the verge of going out of business and
> which does have the worst rep for call reliability, whether you want to
> accept that or not, and you're on this thread justifying your decision
> because why, if I'm the "drama queen"? Perhaps the reason Verizon users are
> not jumping in talking about where their coverage was better than the other
> carriers is BECAUSE THE LIST WOULD BE TOO LONG! :-)

LOL, and of course his whole premise is wrong to begin with since in
fact Verizon does have coverage in the area in question, just not native
coverage.

> By the way, while I'm just as disappointed as you that Verizon passed up the
> iPhone opportunity, I have to say that if Verizon were an individual person
> we would be complimenting their moral character, not criticizing them. Apple
> trying to make a deal which cuts into the service provider's revenues is a
> bit self-serving and arrogant, I think. Verizon telling them to f___ off is
> sort of ballsy, dontcha think?

Perhaps the Verizon executives weren't briefed as to the proper protocol
when dealing with Steve Jobs.

> And last, I might ask you why you think Apple approached Verizon first? It
> couldn't be because Sprint was the better choice for them but they wanted to
> start at the bottom, could it? :-)

Verizon had the largest retail subscriber base, and hence the largest
market for iPhones. While AT&T's network has more users, AT&T has a much
larger percentage of prepaid users on MVNOs, who would not be able to
buy the iPhone. I don't think it was anything more sinister than
starting at the carrier with the most sales potential, then working
their way down.

As to why Verizon turned them down, one of the reasons was that they
would have had to put the iPhone on their 3G network, but at a price
point much lower than they currently charge. AT&T solved the problem by
only allowing Apple to do the 2G iPhone on EDGE, at least initially.
It'll be interesting to see if the upcoming 3G iPhone has the same plan
pricing as the 2G, or if they'll have two plans, one for EDGE and one
for HSDPA at different prices.

SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>> And for what? My report about lack of Verizon coverage in 86403
>> wasn't a slam against Verizon per se. It was meant to sarcastically
>> show how absurd these little anecdotal reports actually are. In
>> fact I don't care if your phone worked while skiing, driving down a
>> mountainous rural state highway, or even in your own home. Call me
>> selfish but what matters to me is that my phones work where I am at.
>
> Not sure what your agenda is here, but as I proved, Verizon has
> complete coverage in 84603.
>

Nice attempt but no, Navas Jr., the discussion was about 86403 where Verizon
has zero coverage. I witnessed this first-hand and in fact own a house
there. Somehow I trust my first-hand experience, and the word of the SBA rep
for the towers in the area (the land on one of them which I sold to SBA
several years ago), more than your coverage-map-is-always-right, except when
I don't want it to be, mindset.


--
Mike

SMS ???. ? wrote:
>
> LOL, and of course his whole premise is wrong to begin with since in
> fact Verizon does have coverage in the area in question, just not
> native coverage.

That's priceless, Navas Jr., priceless.

Now we are calling roaming "Verizon" coverage now. I don't think even the
original Navas would get *that* foolish.


>
>> By the way, while I'm just as disappointed as you that Verizon
>> passed up the iPhone opportunity, I have to say that if Verizon were
>> an individual person we would be complimenting their moral
>> character, not criticizing them. Apple trying to make a deal which
>> cuts into the service provider's revenues is a bit self-serving and
>> arrogant, I think. Verizon telling them to f___ off is sort of
>> ballsy, dontcha think?
>
> Perhaps the Verizon executives weren't briefed as to the proper
> protocol when dealing with Steve Jobs.
>
<snipped the rambling justifications>

I think it actually pains you that Verizon blew it on the iPhone.

Whether you wanted it to appear that way or not, your post looked like a
bunch of sour grapes.


--
Mike

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> When I visited the Bay Area last summer, I had very "gappy" coverage
>> with T-
>> Mo (using the old Cingular/Pac-Bell 1900MHz network.)
>
> Indeed, that's the worst of the worst networks. Earlier this month our
> local city council finally approved a tower for the 1900 MHz network not
> far from me, so I'll get coverage sometime next year. The effort to
> install a tower (and the neighbors efforts to block it) had been going
> on for longer than I've lived in this neighborhood, which is eight years
> now.
>

tmobile doesn't bother with towers in my area. They just make a deal
with the quickie mart or office building owner and plop a couple panels
on the roof and connect them to their little mailbox sized batteryless
cabinet.


> Just for laughs,
>> however, virtually everytime I had no service, I did a system scan and
>> good old "AT&T Blue" network popped up (but the T-Mo SIM wouldn't let me
>> actually
>> use it!)
>
> Yes, in most of the bay area the 800 MHz AT&T GSM network is good. There
> are still many gaps in some areas, such at the tri-valley area in the
> east bay.
>
>> Without any other data, market forces alone make your supposition hard to
>> support- if AT&T service was as bad as you think,
>
> I can say that I don't think AT&T service is as bad as the CR data
> indicates. But the difference between best and worst as far as CR's
> surveys go are not orders of magnitude difference.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 28 Dec 2007 07:57:54 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>>
>>> They've consistently excelled in coverage versus all the other
>>> carriers,
>>> and they based their
>>> whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed
>>> the coverage superiority.
>>
>>
>> Or confirmed their perceived superiority based on a brilliant ad
>> campaign.
>
> Well Cingular had a big ad campaign trying to claim "fewer dropped
> calls" but no one believed them, and even the company that did the
> survey for them came out and said that the premise of their ad campaign
> was incorrect. The AT&T had the "more bars in more places" campaign,
> which no one took seriously.
>
> Verizon's ad campaign was successful not because of its brilliance, but
> because it jived with the experience of its users. Cingular and AT&T's
> ad campaigns failed because every independent survey contradicted the
> claims that were made.

I am not a fan of megacorps but I must say VZWs marketing is very unique
because it actually corresponds to an actual strength.

George wrote:

> I am not a fan of megacorps but I must say VZWs marketing is very unique
> because it actually corresponds to an actual strength.

_Successful_ marketing campaigns almost always correspond to actual
strengths. Wal-Mart doesn't tout itself as anything but the "Low Price
Leader." T-Mobile doesn't run around boasting about their network, and
Apple doesn't promote the iPhone as a device with the capabilities of a
Blackberry. Unsuccessful marketing campaigns fail because no one
believes them. Sears has tried to promote themselves as a store for
fashion clothing, but failed. Wal-Mart tried to go upscale with their
clothing and failed.

You can't have a successful marketing campaign when every potential
customer knows that you're lying, and when the press confirms that
you're lying, as what happened with the Cingular "fewest dropped calls"
campaign. You might get away with lying if the claims are difficult to
prove or disprove, but this wasn't the case with either Cingular's or
Verizon's marketing campaigns.

What also helped Verizon in their marketing is that they were very open
as to how they conducted their tests. There were some TV news segments
that showed how they did their network testing across the country, where
the reporters accompanied them to see how they performed their testing.
There were some complaints that all the testing was done from the
specially equipped vans rather than from inside buildings, but no one
ever challenged the results.

Contrast that to Cingular that would never release their test
methodology for "Fewest Dropped Calls," and then the lawsuit by Sprint
to try to get them to prove their claim, and the counter-suit by
Cingular against Sprint's claim of having "the most powerful network."
All the controversy resulted in them wasting a tremendous amount of
money on a failed ad campaign. The current "More Bars in More Places" is
vague enough that it'd be more difficult to challenge, even though it'd
be equally true to say that they have no bars in more places and less
bars in many places.

George wrote:

> tmobile doesn't bother with towers in my area. They just make a deal
> with the quickie mart or office building owner and plop a couple panels
> on the roof and connect them to their little mailbox sized batteryless
> cabinet.

That's exactly what Cingular, and later T-Mobile tried to do where in my
area, for a 1900 MHz GSM site. The grocery store backed up to a
neighborhood that successfully fought the tower there as it would have
required a zoning exception to allow the tower. Cingular/T-Mobile tried
to get Walgreen's to allow them to put up a tower, then they tried to
get two different churches to allow a tower in their crosses, and were
turned down. Now T-Mobile's putting up a monopole that isn't attached to
a building.

The area can be seen at "http://i13.tinypic.com/6jez328.jpg".

"http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7762192"

It was interesting to read the comments by residents (one of whom I
know). Duh, the reason so few people use T-Mobile is the poor coverage,
so saying the tower isn't needed because so few people use T-Mobile is
circular logic. The local T-Mobile store is very good about not selling
to residents that have no coverage at their house. The other comment
about not needing the tower because the woman has no problem with
coverage is because she probably has Verizon or AT&T, which a recent
city survey showed that most residents have because they're the only two
carriers that work well around here.

"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> That's not exactly accurate. While arguably not clear, one of JD Power's
> categories in which Verizon excels is "Overall Satisfaction". You can
> interpret that how you wish, but I believe that would include satisfaction
> with their phone service.

Call it whatever you want -- whether 'customer service', 'consumer
experience', 'customer satisfaction', etc, it still has nothing to do with
the quality of the product. If consumer reports used the popularity contest
method to rate all their products, Bose would be rated the #1 speaker
company, bar none.

>Or at least find some citations for me that contradict them.

If you want to claim that a network has the best overall coverage, you need
to provide some measurement of coverage to support it. Overall satisfaction
has nothing to do with coverage -- it's a '2/3 ads I see reinforce the idea
that my choice of provider was the best one' rating.

~None

none wrote:
> "Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>> That's not exactly accurate. While arguably not clear, one of JD Power's
>> categories in which Verizon excels is "Overall Satisfaction". You can
>> interpret that how you wish, but I believe that would include satisfaction
>> with their phone service.
>
> Call it whatever you want -- whether 'customer service', 'consumer
> experience', 'customer satisfaction', etc, it still has nothing to do with
> the quality of the product.

CR had four categories they reported on, No Service, Circuits Full,
Dropped Calls, and Static. All of these reflect on the quality of the
product, and coverage.

They did not rate the intangibles of customer service, consumer
experience, or customer satisfaction like JD Power did.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Check some of my earlier posts. Some of things I've criticized them for
> include:
>
> -Defeaturing of handsets, including removing the multimedia and file
> transfer capability in Motorola Phone Tools

Fortunately you can toggle one bit in the firmmware and turn on
file transfer, at least I did it with the Verizon Razr.

DTC wrote:
> SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>> Check some of my earlier posts. Some of things I've criticized them
>> for include:
>>
>> -Defeaturing of handsets, including removing the multimedia and file
>> transfer capability in Motorola Phone Tools
>
> Fortunately you can toggle one bit in the firmmware and turn on
> file transfer, at least I did it with the Verizon Razr.


The solid fact that you had to do that in the first place is the point.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

DTC wrote:
> SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>> Check some of my earlier posts. Some of things I've criticized them
>> for include:
>>
>> -Defeaturing of handsets, including removing the multimedia and file
>> transfer capability in Motorola Phone Tools
>
> Fortunately you can toggle one bit in the firmmware and turn on
> file transfer, at least I did it with the Verizon Razr.

I've done the same with the V325i, as well as enabling vibrate then
ring, which for some reason Verizon disabled (were they planning to sell
a ringtone that first vibrated then rang?).

But how many subscribers are going to do a SEEM edit? Maybe 0.1%?

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> But how many subscribers are going to do a SEEM edit? Maybe 0.1%?

I'd say closer to .000001%.

"4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a0ffb29-5c7e-4f43-91de-cd14de9f5ea9@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 11:43 pm, SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> DTC wrote:
>> > SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B wrote:
>> >> Check some of my earlier posts. Some of things I've criticized them
>> >> for include:
>>
>> >> -Defeaturing of handsets, including removing the multimedia and file
>> >> transfer capability in Motorola Phone Tools
>>
>> > Fortunately you can toggle one bit in the firmmware and turn on
>> > file transfer, at least I did it with the Verizon Razr.
>>
>> I've done the same with the V325i, as well as enabling vibrate then
>> ring, which for some reason Verizon disabled (were they planning to sell
>> a ringtone that first vibrated then rang?).
>>
>> But how many subscribers are going to do a SEEM edit? Maybe 0.1%?
>
> Just for fun do a Google search for the expression "Verizon disables
> ".
>
> That will open your eyes!
>

Just for fun, Google Iphone problems. That too will open your eyes.
But maybe not your eyes. Your so fricking blinded by apple it's sad.

Apple used the cheapest speaker in this thing. The other day a friend had
his and we were in my car. Phone call comes in, I wanted to say hi to the
person calling but was busy in bumper to bumper traffic to hold a phone. He
put the call on speaker and at the highest level I was saying repeat more
then the caller was talking. And no, I'm not hard of hearing. The speaker
phone just sucks. And it looks like I'm not alone. Other users are dealing
with the same thing. Speaker phone on the thing sucks.

I also read that when playing music thru the speaker, it only comes out of
one speaker. If that is true, that is another cheap ass apple product. No
wonder they lowered the price 100.00 Local apple store from Dec 1st thru the
24th only sold 53 of them. The few day's after xmas, they had approx 10
returns with people saying things like I don't want to have to Install
ITunes and others were just not happy with the internet speed.

DTC wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>> But how many subscribers are going to do a SEEM edit? Maybe 0.1%?
>
> I'd say closer to .000001%.

One in every hundred million is a bit low, no?

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

"4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4a682a-9b77-4916-aaa2-52d93817186d@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 5:14 am, "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithwea...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> "4phun" <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6a0ffb29-5c7e-4f43-91de-cd14de9f5ea9@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 29, 11:43 pm, SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> >> DTC wrote:
>> >> > SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B wrote:
>> >> >> Check some of my earlier posts. Some of things I've criticized them
>> >> >> for include:
>>
>> >> >> -Defeaturing of handsets, including removing the multimedia and
>> >> >> file
>> >> >> transfer capability in Motorola Phone Tools
>>
>> >> > Fortunately you can toggle one bit in the firmmware and turn on
>> >> > file transfer, at least I did it with the Verizon Razr.
>>
>> >> I've done the same with the V325i, as well as enabling vibrate then
>> >> ring, which for some reason Verizon disabled (were they planning to
>> >> sell
>> >> a ringtone that first vibrated then rang?).
>>
>> >> But how many subscribers are going to do a SEEM edit? Maybe 0.1%?
>>
>> > Just for fun do a Google search for the expression "Verizon disables
>> > ".
>>
>> > That will open your eyes!
>>
>> Just for fun, Google Iphone problems. That too will open your eyes.
>> But maybe not your eyes. Your so fricking blinded by apple it's sad.
>>
>> Apple used the cheapest speaker in this thing. The other day a friend had
>> his and we were in my car. Phone call comes in, I wanted to say hi to the
>> person calling but was busy in bumper to bumper traffic to hold a phone.
>> He
>> put the call on speaker and at the highest level I was saying repeat more
>> then the caller was talking. And no, I'm not hard of hearing. The speaker
>> phone just sucks. And it looks like I'm not alone. Other users are
>> dealing
>> with the same thing. Speaker phone on the thing sucks.
>>
>> I also read that when playing music thru the speaker, it only comes out
>> of
>> one speaker. If that is true, that is another cheap ass apple product. No
>> wonder they lowered the price 100.00 Local apple store from Dec 1st thru
>> the
>> 24th only sold 53 of them. The few day's after xmas, they had approx 10
>> returns with people saying things like I don't want to have to Install
>> ITunes and others were just not happy with the internet speed.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Anyone can fix the volume on an iPhone with a pin. There is a hard
> plastic membrane over the speaker on the left side to keep water and
> dirt out. Just pop a few holes in it and the volume will increase
> dramatically.
>
> Another way to bump up the volume is in software but that requires a
> jailbroken phone until you can install such apps through the iTune
> interface.


Yay, Stick a sharp pin into the speaker. That works. NOT! Doing so would
void the much needed warranty that so many users are going to need.

clifto wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>>> But how many subscribers are going to do a SEEM edit? Maybe 0.1%?
>> I'd say closer to .000001%.
>
> One in every hundred million is a bit low, no?

Not according to the billions of users that any particular
cellular provider has. [snicker]