> I was fooled by Verizon, too, into buying the 9900. It does not
> work in the 2megapixel mode over the Verizon network and Verizon
> has no plan to fix that problem.
>
> I am off to ATT for an IPHONE.
Let me see, here...
You're going to spend $500 for a phone that you could buy on Ebay for
$200 in a few weeks and you're changing to the most hated network in
the universe because you're unable to figure out how to work your 9900?
Yup, you're really going to stick it to Verizon, you sure are!
I'm tempted to quote the great philosopher, Mr. B. Bunny here but I'll
refrain.... ;-)
The "most hated network" goes with "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
I have both Verizon (work) and AT&T (personal) phones ... in my local area
AT&T service is far superior! The Verizon phone (Treo 700w) makes you want
to throw it out the window for having "THE MOST DROPPED CALLS".
"XS11E" <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99629B43688DExs11emailinatorcom@69.28.173. 184...
> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
>> I was fooled by Verizon, too, into buying the 9900. It does not
>> work in the 2megapixel mode over the Verizon network and Verizon
>> has no plan to fix that problem.
>>
>> I am off to ATT for an IPHONE.
>
>
> Let me see, here...
>
> You're going to spend $500 for a phone that you could buy on Ebay for
> $200 in a few weeks and you're changing to the most hated network in
> the universe because you're unable to figure out how to work your 9900?
>
> Yup, you're really going to stick it to Verizon, you sure are!
>
> I'm tempted to quote the great philosopher, Mr. B. Bunny here but I'll
> refrain.... ;-)
>
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Ann wrote:
> The "most hated network" goes with "beauty is in the eye of the
> beholder"
> I have both Verizon (work) and AT&T (personal) phones ... in my local
> area AT&T service is far superior! The Verizon phone (Treo 700w)
> makes you want to throw it out the window for having "THE MOST
> DROPPED CALLS".
Ann- while that may be true in your particular area, and in your personal
experience, it seems to be generally accepted information that AT&T's
network is inferior to Verizon's, when looked at on a national basis at
least. One of the primary criticisms I've seen of the iPhone by review
writers was in Apple's choice of AT&T as the provider.
I don't care for Verizon's consistent failure to be at the forefront of the
latest technology phones, and I have let them know this both in a survey
they sent me and an email I wrote to customer service, but I'm not switching
out because I believe, in the bottom line, that Verizon provides the most
reliable service which is, after all, the most important factor, isn't it...
At 12 Jul 2007 10:45:51 -0400 Carl wrote:
> but I'm not switching
> out because I believe, in the bottom line, that Verizon provides the
most
> reliable service which is, after all, the most important factor, isn't
it...
To some. Personally I think it's a balance between coverage, features
and value. I find Verizon too expensive ad their handset policies too
limiting (can't use handsets from other carriers, can't easily switch
handsets; i.e. I don't take my $300 PDA phone to the beach- it's too
fragile. I switch to a cheapie phone in "dangerous" environments.)
T-Mo is dirt cheap for both Voice and data, has adequate coverage
(nowhere as ubiquitous as Verizon's, of course) and with SIM cards makes
swapping phones as easy as changing socks.
(Now this is where the Verizon fans jump in and say "all that cheapness
and phone switching is useless if you don't have coverage!")
That's certainly a valid point, but if coverage is the end-all be-all,
why aren't the Verizon users on Iridium or another $2/minute satellite
phone service? Even Verizon coverage pales next to a satellite phone.
They're not all on Iridium because _everyone_ balances coverage with
value- some of us just fall at different places on the value vs. coverage
scale.
Just FYI, the Treo(s) have been universally panned for
being very poor performers in the RF department.
(quite bad at picking up and keeping a signal)
Try another (better) phone on Verizon. It may make some difference.
But it is almost certain that the Treo has something to do with it.
"Ann" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:S--dnYRE6tN6RQjbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@insightbb.com...
> I have both Verizon (work) and AT&T (personal) phones ... in my local area AT&T service is far superior! The Verizon
> phone (Treo 700w) makes you want to throw it out the window for having "THE MOST DROPPED CALLS".
>
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 12 Jul 2007 10:45:51 -0400 Carl wrote:
>> but I'm not switching
>> out because I believe, in the bottom line, that Verizon provides the
>> most reliable service which is, after all, the most important
>> factor, isn't it...
>
> To some. Personally I think it's a balance between coverage, features
> and value. I find Verizon too expensive ad their handset policies too
> limiting (can't use handsets from other carriers, can't easily switch
> handsets; i.e. I don't take my $300 PDA phone to the beach- it's too
> fragile. I switch to a cheapie phone in "dangerous" environments.)
> T-Mo is dirt cheap for both Voice and data, has adequate coverage
> (nowhere as ubiquitous as Verizon's, of course) and with SIM cards
> makes swapping phones as easy as changing socks.
>
> (Now this is where the Verizon fans jump in and say "all that
> cheapness and phone switching is useless if you don't have coverage!")
>
> That's certainly a valid point, but if coverage is the end-all be-all,
> why aren't the Verizon users on Iridium or another $2/minute satellite
> phone service? Even Verizon coverage pales next to a satellite phone.
> They're not all on Iridium because _everyone_ balances coverage with
> value- some of us just fall at different places on the value vs.
> coverage scale.
Sorry Todd, I don't think your argument nor your analogy is reasonable. The
price difference between the current standard service providers is
insignificant compared to the huge jump, which makes calling simply
unaffordable for the majority of us, to an Iridium phone.
That said, I will re-state that I wish Verizon was more at the forefront of
cell phone technology.
> Sorry Todd, I don't think your argument nor your analogy is reasonable.
> The
> price difference between the current standard service providers is
> insignificant compared to the huge jump, which makes calling simply
> unaffordable for the majority of us, to an Iridium phone.
Faie enough- but my point is still valid- you pay what you feel is a fair
price for a level of coverage you're comfortable with.
In my case, my wife and I both use Windows Mobile phones. (A T-Mo MDA
and a Dash- roughly the equivalent of a VX-6700 and Moto Q.) Before tax,
I have two lines with voice and unlimited e-mail and web browsing for
$72. Similar service from Verizon or Cingular, last time I priced it,
would've run me between $130-150. (Both charge exhorbitant amounts for
data on the PDAs.) In my case, the jump from T-Mo to Verizon is almost
as bad as your jump from Verizon to Iridium would be!
> That said, I will re-state that I wish Verizon was more at the
> forefront of cell phone technology.
>
> Each to their own, I suppose.
Agreed- I have nothing against Verizon, it's just that ubiquitous
coverage is further down on my priority list than it is yours, that's all.
> (Now this is where the Verizon fans jump in and say "all that cheapness
> and phone switching is useless if you don't have coverage!")
>
> That's certainly a valid point, but if coverage is the end-all be-all,
> why aren't the Verizon users on Iridium or another $2/minute satellite
> phone service? Even Verizon coverage pales next to a satellite phone.
> They're not all on Iridium because _everyone_ balances coverage with
> value- some of us just fall at different places on the value vs. coverage
> scale.
I've got a Globalstar satellite phone at work. Sure they'll work just about
everywhere. But they don't work under moderate to heavy tree cover, in a
car (unless you have an external antenna, which happens to be expensive).
Data rate is 9600 bits/sec (basically equivalent to a very old modem).
Handsets are very large (though looks like they now have smaller ones). It
usually doesn't work in canyons (I'm suspecting it may not work in urban
canyons). Satellite phones should not be viewed as a replacement for cell
phones but as a supplement. Use them in areas where there is no cell phone
reception. They are big, expensive, with very limited data capabilities.
We use ours where there are no cell phone coverage and/or for emergencies.
We buy 500 mins which we can use for up to one year.
"Pete Rissler" <peter_rissler@rissler.reno.nv.us> wrote in message
news:5fpluvF3dt36uU1@mid.individual.net...
>> (Now this is where the Verizon fans jump in and say "all that cheapness
>> and phone switching is useless if you don't have coverage!")
>>
>> That's certainly a valid point, but if coverage is the end-all be-all,
>> why aren't the Verizon users on Iridium or another $2/minute satellite
>> phone service? Even Verizon coverage pales next to a satellite phone.
>> They're not all on Iridium because _everyone_ balances coverage with
>> value- some of us just fall at different places on the value vs. coverage
>> scale.
>
> I've got a Globalstar satellite phone at work. Sure they'll work just
> about everywhere. But they don't work under moderate to heavy tree cover,
> in a car (unless you have an external antenna, which happens to be
> expensive). Data rate is 9600 bits/sec (basically equivalent to a very old
> modem). Handsets are very large (though looks like they now have smaller
> ones). It usually doesn't work in canyons (I'm suspecting it may not work
> in urban canyons). Satellite phones should not be viewed as a replacement
> for cell phones but as a supplement. Use them in areas where there is no
> cell phone reception. They are big, expensive, with very limited data
> capabilities. We use ours where there are no cell phone coverage and/or
> for emergencies. We buy 500 mins which we can use for up to one year.
>
Thank you for this info. I actually knew some of this when I suggested to
Todd his analogy was not valid, but I didn't want to get too wordy in my
post. But this stuff needed to be said.
I do maintain that when it comes to MAKING PHONE CALLS, coverage of the
provider IS the end all and be all. Todd is tossing in his need for data
exchange, internet access, etc. vs. cost, which are his needs, I understand,
but have little to do with whether a phone is most useful as a phone.
On 2007-07-13, Carl <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> Thank you for this info. I actually knew some of this when I suggested to
> Todd his analogy was not valid, but I didn't want to get too wordy in my
> post. But this stuff needed to be said.
>
> I do maintain that when it comes to MAKING PHONE CALLS, coverage of the
> provider IS the end all and be all. Todd is tossing in his need for data
> exchange, internet access, etc. vs. cost, which are his needs, I understand,
> but have little to do with whether a phone is most useful as a phone.
While you might not like Todd's analogy, and even if we restrict the
conversation to voice calls, I still think you are making a value
judgement about functionality versus cost that is in no way universal.
Where I live, for example, I can tell you that my coverage is improved
by carrying two phones from two different providers. My Verizon phone
is generally a bit more useful in the hills and rural areas near where
I live, but in the stores at the mall a mile from my house my AT&T phone
has 4-bar service while my Verizon phone is dead. My Verizon phone also
drops calls more often than the AT&T phone in dense industrial and suburban
areas near here, and sends many more calls directly to voice mail than
the AT&T phone even in places where the phone seems to have good service.
I suspect the latter might reflect the fact that Verizon has the largest
customer base and the smallest amount of radio spectrum of the four
big providers here, and is maybe suffering a bit from load problems.
Yes, carrying two phones is a geeky pain in the butt, and yes, it costs
more to maintain two lines of service, but if coverage is the "end all
and be all" then I can tell you that I get a significant advantage by
having two phones that you are missing out on by having only one. I
assume your decision not to have two was made for reasons other than
coverage, so you are trading your coverage off against other issues.
I'd also point out that your observation that Verizon has the
best coverage nationwide, on average, while very likely true, actually
tells you very little about the coverage in the place where you are
right now, or the places where you spend the most time (a consequence
common to comparisons of any statistical distributions which have
closely-spaced means and large variances). Decisions made on the
basis of coverage are always local in nature, and coverage isn't
the only issue that informs decisions (or you'd probably have two
or more phones).
In fact the reason I have two phones has little to do with coverage
and a lot to do with the fact that the combination was the cheapest
way I could find to get service that I sometimes have to spend a lot
of money on. For coverage where I live I was actually pretty happy
with Sprint as it was a couple of years ago while T-Mobile, which I
also had, had less good coverage but was quite cheap for what you got
and very pleasant to deal with. I'd go back to one of them if I retired
here, in fact; the coverage issue isn't that compelling to me.
Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:slrnf9fmja.88.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com:
> While you might not like Todd's analogy, and even if we restrict the
> conversation to voice calls, I still think you are making a value
> judgement about functionality versus cost that is in no way universal.
> Where I live, for example, I can tell you that my coverage is improved
> by carrying two phones from two different providers. My Verizon phone
> is generally a bit more useful in the hills and rural areas near where
> I live, but in the stores at the mall a mile from my house my AT&T
> phone has 4-bar service while my Verizon phone is dead. My Verizon
> phone also drops calls more often than the AT&T phone in dense
> industrial and suburban areas near here, and sends many more calls
> directly to voice mail than the AT&T phone even in places where the
> phone seems to have good service. I suspect the latter might reflect
> the fact that Verizon has the largest customer base and the smallest
> amount of radio spectrum of the four big providers here, and is maybe
> suffering a bit from load problems.
>
The solution to coverage problems is actually quite simple. The public,
through its FCC, who issue licenses to the carriers to use the PUBLIC's
airwaves, simply makes the decision to FORCE all carriers to use a COMMON
MODE, like the AMPS mode was before all this deregulated digital
nonsense-to-prevent-churning-and-roaming was invented to boost profits.
If your company, any company, chooses not to participate, we simply
cancel your license to operate on OUR airwaves and you go your way, the
rest of us will go OURS, not "theirs". Noone needs go begging for a
cellphone company, these days. We have way too many, now!
OK, the which-mode-is-best flogging aside, WE, the public who own the
airwaves, have decided all carriers will support GSM, so our phones will
operate on our Paris vacation, which is in OUR interest, not "theirs".
Now we all have phones that will operate on ANYONE'S system. Then, WE,
the public who own the airwaves, decide that PRLs will be abolished that
prevent in-market roaming onto working systems when the home system
cannot, or will not, provide smooth coverage. Verizon's phones will now,
by our decree if they want to use our airwaves, roam onto any other
carrier's towers it can find, any time Verizon does not provide a working
signal for the phone to stay attached to. WE, the public who own the
airwaves they're making the big bucks on, FORCE them to provide this in-
market roaming FOR FREE, giving them the incentive to either make mutual
agreements among themselves to provide each other service, a swap when
necessary to COMPLY with our wishes....or....to put up those towers they
should have put up long ago to cover their own dead zones poste haste as
the profits get eaten alive by other carriers sending roaming bills! We
care not which method they find best for themselves, as long as it's
done.
All we need do is assert ourselves and put OUR commissioners into the
FCC, kicking out THEIR commissioners who have taken the place over in the
past decade....a PURGE they used to call it in the Soviet Union. Of
course, to do that, we'll have to PURGE the Congress and White House
FIRST....not an easy task. As we have all seen since the AMPS days,
nothing will change left as it is now...us begging some bastards to
provide some kind of usable signal like dogs begging for a Meaty Bone
from Mom.
Larry
--
I'll help with the license cancellations until they get the message and
come ON THEIR KNEES begging us for a license again.....(c;
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-07-13, Carl <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> I do maintain that when it comes to MAKING PHONE CALLS, coverage of
>> the provider IS the end all and be all.
>
> While you might not like Todd's analogy, and even if we restrict the
> conversation to voice calls, I still think you are making a value
> judgement about functionality versus cost that is in no way universal.
> Where I live, for example, I can tell you that my coverage is improved
> by carrying two phones from two different providers. >
> Yes, carrying two phones is a geeky pain in the butt, and yes, it
> costs more to maintain two lines of service, but if coverage is the
> "end all
> and be all" then I can tell you that I get a significant advantage by
> having two phones
>
yes, we agree on many points:
1. my opinion is a value judgement- sorry about that- my wife complains to
me about that all the time- I'm working on it
2. carrying two phones is a geeky pain in the butt- you'll get no argument
from me there
3. you're right, if coverage was my absolute primary concern, I would carry
a beltload of phones, including the Iridium phone someone else suggested-
but I was speaking within a single-phone context and I am more vested in
maintaining my "non-geek" persona than having perfect coverage... :-)
We each have to do what we each feel comfortable with.
Re: Verizon's shenanigans. 
Linear Mode
