Verizon Worsens America's Choice Calling Plan--No more roaming, even at extra cost, No more National Single Rate Plan.

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116954161.859746@sj-nntpcache-5...
> So what's your point?
>
> Was this a public service for those who can't read?
>
> -Quick

If you noticed, the OP was crossposted for all the cellular newsgroups in
the galaxy, and a few other newsgroups as well. It was news to yours truly,
and I'm sure quite a few others, who don't participate on the Verizon
newsgroup.

Bob

In article <qOJke.9842$w21.1430@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1116954161.859746@sj-nntpcache-5...
>> So what's your point?
>>
>> Was this a public service for those who can't read?
>>
[snip]
> It was news to yours truly,
> and I'm sure quite a few others, who don't participate on the Verizon
> newsgroup.

It was timely, for me, being as I'm on the verge of choosing a new
plan and phones. I'll *probably* stick with SPCS, but VZ would
probably be my 2nd choice. Or would have been.

I wonder what VZ hopes to gain by shrinking their coverage?

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison

"Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
news:1198nk6obsehl80@corp.supernews.com...

> I wonder what VZ hopes to gain by shrinking their coverage?

According to the Verizon CSR, they were having a problem with complaints
about roaming charges. This stemmed from two issues.

First, many people do not understand what the roaming indicators on their
phone means. The little flashing or non-flashing triangle, or the solid or
flashing :"Extended Network" message (complicating this is the fact that the
flashing versus non-flashing is counter-intuitive, flashing should be used
when you are being charged roaming, and solid should be used when you are on
the Extended Network, but it's the opposite way around).

Second, many people never update their PRL. As Verizon has reduced its
extended network coverage, the phone will still indicate that you are not
roaming, if you have an old PRL that included the area you're in as part of
the extended network.

So the solution to eliminating complaints about roaming charges is obviously
to eliminate all roaming. Not having your phone work at all is obviously
better than paying for roaming!

The non-roaming AC does have a larger extended network than the old roaming
AC, but there are still areas where the choice is roaming or no service.

The solution is to carry a second phone from a prepaid provider, that allows
roaming, when traveling. An old TDMA/AMPS phone on Beyond Wireless
(http://gobeyondwireless.com) will work, and has no minimums, and no
expiration (other than making one call every 60 days).

In article <Vz0le.7609$M36.7511@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> "Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
> news:1198nk6obsehl80@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > I wonder what VZ hopes to gain by shrinking their coverage?
>
> According to the Verizon CSR, they were having a problem with complaints
> about roaming charges. This stemmed from two issues.
>
> First, many people do not understand what the roaming indicators on their
> phone means. The little flashing or non-flashing triangle, or the solid or
> flashing :"Extended Network" message (complicating this is the fact that the
> flashing versus non-flashing is counter-intuitive, flashing should be used
> when you are being charged roaming, and solid should be used when you are on
> the Extended Network, but it's the opposite way around).

Exactly! This happened to me last year on the Miss. River... The
regular 'help' gave me the wrong info, only after bring it up, by
chance, with a 'data' specialist did she correctly inform me about the
solid triangle. She offer to credit back all roaming charges and would
call me in 45 days to make sure it was done... she did call me, which
was impressive service.

I'd love to switch to a GSM based service, but in my home area VZ is
really very good coverage... my biggest grip is with their position on
'bluetooth', they will not make it fully functional... so you hopefully
will use "Get it Now"... there is a Class Action suit for this... great
another 30% off coupon at goods I don't want and are 150% overvalued.

jay
Wed May 25, 2005
mailto:gofig@mac.com


>
> Second, many people never update their PRL. As Verizon has reduced its
> extended network coverage, the phone will still indicate that you are not
> roaming, if you have an old PRL that included the area you're in as part of
> the extended network.
>
> So the solution to eliminating complaints about roaming charges is obviously
> to eliminate all roaming. Not having your phone work at all is obviously
> better than paying for roaming!
>
> The non-roaming AC does have a larger extended network than the old roaming
> AC, but there are still areas where the choice is roaming or no service.
>
> The solution is to carry a second phone from a prepaid provider, that allows
> roaming, when traveling. An old TDMA/AMPS phone on Beyond Wireless
> (http://gobeyondwireless.com) will work, and has no minimums, and no
> expiration (other than making one call every 60 days).
>
>

"Go Fig" <gofig@mac.com> wrote in message
news:250520050921353634%gofig@mac.com...
> In article <Vz0le.7609$M36.7511@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1198nk6obsehl80@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > I wonder what VZ hopes to gain by shrinking their coverage?
> >
> > According to the Verizon CSR, they were having a problem with complaints
> > about roaming charges. This stemmed from two issues.
> >
> > First, many people do not understand what the roaming indicators on
their
> > phone means. The little flashing or non-flashing triangle, or the solid
or
> > flashing :"Extended Network" message (complicating this is the fact that
the
> > flashing versus non-flashing is counter-intuitive, flashing should be
used
> > when you are being charged roaming, and solid should be used when you
are on
> > the Extended Network, but it's the opposite way around).
>
> Exactly! This happened to me last year on the Miss. River... The
> regular 'help' gave me the wrong info, only after bring it up, by
> chance, with a 'data' specialist did she correctly inform me about the
> solid triangle.

When I was in Alaska, I couldn't convince my sister-in-law that the flashing
meant that she was on the extended network. She called customer service, and
they gave her the wrong answer, telling her that Verizon had no service in
Alaska (and adding that Alaska is our 50th state!). I told her to call back
and ask again, since with Verizon, you really should go for two out of
three, or three out of five, to have a good chance of getting the correct
information.

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> So the solution to eliminating complaints about roaming charges is obviously
> to eliminate all roaming. Not having your phone work at all is obviously
> better than paying for roaming!

Yeahbut they also got rid of National Single-Rate, where you wouldn't
HAVE roaming complaints because you always roam without roaming charges
in the US.

Is North America's Choice still available?

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:4294F542.90003@JustThe.net...
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> > So the solution to eliminating complaints about roaming charges is
obviously
> > to eliminate all roaming. Not having your phone work at all is obviously
> > better than paying for roaming!
>
> Yeahbut they also got rid of National Single-Rate, where you wouldn't
> HAVE roaming complaints because you always roam without roaming charges
> in the US.

I think that the only people signing up for NSR were people that were doing
a great deal of off-network roaming, otherwise it would have been cheaper to
use AC and pay for occasional roaming. So Verizon was probably losing money
on NSR from too many customers to keep offering it.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 00:48:44 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
>"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>> Yeahbut they also got rid of National Single-Rate, where you wouldn't
>> HAVE roaming complaints because you always roam without roaming charges
>> in the US.
>
>I think that the only people signing up for NSR were people that were doing
>a great deal of off-network roaming, otherwise it would have been cheaper to
>use AC and pay for occasional roaming. So Verizon was probably losing money
>on NSR from too many customers to keep offering it.

My mother lived in a rural area, and had NSR. NSR is/was practically
a must for people in those areas, where the towers are few and far
between. You can be on a Verizon tower, drive 100 ft down the road,
and be on some other company's tower incurring roaming charges.

Great NSR story about my small rural hometown... I bought my mother a
Verizon cell phone with NSR. At that time, everything was analog (and
probably still is). NSR was not cheap, but she could afford it, and I
wanted to make things simple for her (i.e. not having to worry about
roaming). Lots of folks bought Verizion phones in that area, as the
other option was a regional provider with rather poor plans. The
nearest Verizon tower was about 20 air miles away. Reception was not
great, but usable most of the time (an external antenna helped
immensely). As I recall, one band (A or B, I'm not sure) picked up
the distant Verizon tower most of the time, but sometimes picked up a
non-Verizon tower. the other band picked up a tower from another cell
provider. I was sure glad we chose NSR! Surprisingly, many people
did not buy the NSR plan.

Some small company came in and built a cell tower a few miles outside
of town. The town was thrilled, as this closer tower would allow the
folks to ditch their antennas and bag phones. Then, the new tower was
turned on. I don't know the technical details, but somehow the
Verizon phones always connected to the new tower, and would no longer
pick up the distant Verizon tower. But this tower company did not
feel compelled to enter a roaming agreement with Verizion. So the
Verizon users who didn't have NSR started incurring roaming charges
for every call (both bands were roaming towers). The issue dragged
on for months, and it may still may not be resolved. There were
hearings and town meetings, but apparently no agency had the authority
to compell Verizon and this tower company to make an agreement. My
mother has since passed on, and my sister still has the phone with
NSR, but lives in a larger town that has better Verizion coverage.
She still benefits from NSR when she travels out away from town.

Joe Huber
huber.joseph@comcast.net