1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Approved List (56k beware)

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Shawn \ Indirect Agent\, Dec 1, 2003.

  1. _KC_

    _KC_ Guest

    "Dean M" <"dean173"@yahoo.com(change to aol)> wrote in message
    news:l4dzb.23820$lF6.20972@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
    > I was told today by an independent dealer that the rule applies to NEW
    > ACTIVATIONS only, that is, you would still be able to activate an older

    phone,
    > but on an existing account only.
    >
    > Anyone know if this is accurate?
    >
    > Dean




    I should of worded this a little clearer. It will be on new contract
    agreements, so it doesn't have to be a completely new activation, it could
    be an upgrade. System will still allow people with non GPS phones to swap
    ESN's around. Just that any dealer wanting to get paid for a new
    activation/upgrade better be using GPS handsets is what we were told.



    KC



    › See More: Approved List (56k beware)
  2. _KC_

    _KC_ Guest

    "Stephen" <smbhatesspam-google@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:eff59def.0312022201.46aa923b@posting.google.com...
    > What about using the web site to activate a phone? For example, I am
    > looking into getting an LG VX6000, but if I plan on going into an area
    > where analog will be needed, I wanted to go to the web site and
    > re-activate my old V60i for the duration of the trip.
    >
    > Are they going to restrict me from activating an old, non-GPS phone
    > myself?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Stephen




    ESN changes on existing accounts will not be a problem is what we were told.



    KC
  3. Steve Crow

    Steve Crow Guest

    Why do I hate Audiovox? You mean, aside from the whole cheap-plastic-crap
    thing? Or the lack of innovative features? Or creative design? I can
    hardly tell one Audiovox apart from the rest... they all look alike (much
    like Nokias, which I also despise with a passion), they all seem to be
    manufactured just as poorly, if not worse than Nokias (have I mentioned my
    disgust for those yet?), and finally, in my opinion, they just suck.

    Regarding the PS... no, at least not recently... but if you'd like you can
    help out by taking some of my ailments off my hands. Which would you like?
    Headache? Muscle aches? Persistent hacking cough? Sinus drainage? Fever?
    Or perhaps the sore left behind from when I bit a chunk out of my tongue
    at Hardee's on Sunday... Let me know, and anything you can take off my
    hands would bring me one step closer to sleep. :)

    Steve


    On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, ShackAttack wrote:

    > Hi Steve.....
    >
    > I don't want to get into a war IN ANY WAY, you are right, I guess I should
    > have gotten it in writing BUT I asked if ok to release to the public and was
    > informed ok. (The keep disclaimer comment still makes me think they didn't
    > understand the very precise question I asked)
    >
    > More importantly.....why do you hate Audiovox....I have had great luck with
    > them. I'm currently using a 9500.
    >
    > ShackAttack
    >
    > PS do you every sleep......
    >
    >
    > "Steve Crow" <scrow@stevecrow.net> wrote in message
    > news:pine.LNX.4.53.0312030201430.6714@www.stevecrow.net...
    > >
    > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, ShackAttack wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi Steve....Of course......I have been involved with large corporations

    > for
    > > > years and "know the ropes" I got a nod from VZW before posting. What
    > > > brought this to my attention in the first place was a customer came in
    > > > asking if a phone could be used on the system. I pull the InfoCT and

    > looked
    > > > it up. Customer asked if could have a copy, I call Customer Service and
    > > > asked if it was "ok for me to print the Approve Devices Sheet and give

    > to a
    > > > customer requesting it".....she left for what seemed like forever

    > checking
    > > > with the Supervisor and when came back she said ok, but leave any

    > disclaimer
    > > > info intact. ( I do really need to write down the name of the reps for
    > > > later use though---and do you notice you never get to actually speak

    > with
    > > > the supervisor)....

    > >
    > > Nice, so you DIDN'T get permission to post it here. Good job.
    > >
    > > > And don't let the nickname throw you. You may know where I work (give

    > me a
    > > > call sometime-I would love to chat with another agent) but it is not at
    > > > Radi0Shak

    > >
    > > As I am well aware.
    > >
    > > > FYI customer had an older dual mode Audiovox (amps/CDMA)...so he got a

    > new
    > > > phone.....

    > >
    > > Audiovox... yuck. [vomiting profusely]
    > >
    > > > ShackAttack

    > >
    > >
    > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

    > News==----
    > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000

    > Newsgroups
    > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

    > =---
    >
    >
    >



    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  4. Aboutdakota

    Aboutdakota Guest

    >>So that would render the phone incapable of determining it's own
    >>location without being in contact with a CDMA tower.

    >
    > That's right. But the whole point of the government mandate is to
    > support location for emergency calls, and if you cannot talk to
    > a tower, you won't be able to talk to the E911 center, so what good
    > would a location fix be?


    Oh, look --- it's an analog tower from Cingular. Oh wait, Cingular's
    E911 will work without additional upgrades to handsets, so it will work
    with Verizon phones. Oh, look --- it's a Cellular One analog tower.

    > BTW, the aGPS technology is advertised to work with any digital air
    > interface, not just CDMA, so Cingular, et.al, COULD have used it.
    > A few bits have to be exchanged between the tower and the phone, by
    > whatever protocol.


    But wouldn't this require an updated handset? And besides, Cingular has
    some time to think about e911 with UMTS, as it is still upgrading to GSM.

    ==AD
  5. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:05:37 -0600, "Shawn \" Indirect Agent\""
    <shackattack6089@yahoo.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Verizon Wireless - Approved Device List 11/6/03 (Changes in BOLD)


    Do you plan to maintain (update) this list in the future? If so, I'd
    be willing to host it on one of my sites.
  6. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:02:12 GMT, "N9WOS"
    <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >The only thing the towers can do is if the phone
    >isn't receiving enough satellites to make a solid fix,
    >the towers can take their GPS data and use
    >it to supplement the data that the phone is missing.


    Uh ... how? Their data and the phone's data are different. You can't
    mix signals received by receivers at different locations to get a fix.
  7. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On 2 Dec 2003 19:22:55 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) posted
    in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >But how many cell sites actually have the corresponding aGPS equipment,
    >and of those, how many are hooked up to E911 PSAPs?


    E911? I made a 911 call last night and the operator asked me what
    number I was calling from. They don't even have caller ID. And this
    isn't some little out-of-the-way Sheriff's department. We're one
    county away from NYC.
  8. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > >The only thing the towers can do is if the phone
    > >isn't receiving enough satellites to make a solid fix,
    > >the towers can take their GPS data and use
    > >it to supplement the data that the phone is missing.

    >
    > Uh ... how? Their data and the phone's data are different. You can't
    > mix signals received by receivers at different locations to get a fix.


    No, of course not.
    You don't mix them, you compare them. :)

    The place that I thought the calculation was taking place was in the phone.
    But I seem to be a bit in error on that.
    But the unit using tower GPS signals to supplement the phone's
    signals is still part of the system.

    The basics.
    In GPS, you keep track of how long it takes for a signal
    from a satellite in a known position to get to you.
    All satellites have clocks on board that are synchronized to
    the same exact time.

    They broadcast signals that contain their exact orbital positions at
    the time of transmission.
    The GPS receiver takes those signals, how long it takes for them to get
    there,
    and the location of the satellites to calculate the position.

    But you need more than one or two satellites.
    The normal minimum is five satellites.
    That allows the receiver to even out error in the system.
    It allows the receiver to calculate where the receiver would
    have to be to get that delay pattern.
    And it allows the receiver to calculate the "satellite time"
    (ie)Time that you received the time stamp minus
    the delay of signal resulting from the distance of the satellite to the
    receiver.
    With one or two, there is no mathematical way for the
    receiver to find out where it's located in reference to the satellites.
    And there is no way to determine true "satellite time"

    That is where the tower comes in.
    ALL CDMA towers have GPS receivers.
    That has been standard from the time CDMA hit the market.
    It allows precise timing for soft handoffs.
    The place where it come in to A-GPS is right there.
    A tower or cell keeps track "satellite time"
    for use in carrier timing.
    Since all towers know "satellite time"
    it is easy to do the calculations.

    But you may ask, "How does that help?"

    With the satellites, the tower can determine the
    delay between a base station and the phone.
    that can be added to the calculations
    to determine the location of the phone.

    Where a normal GPS receiver needs
    five satellites to get a fix.
    A-GPS needs only two or so.
    The receiver forwards the data stream
    from the satellites back to the tower with
    minimal and controlled delay.

    The tower already knows "satellite time"
    because it has contact with multiple satellites.
    So it can determine "true delay" of the signals
    reaching the phone.
    Once that is determined, then location
    calculation becomes real easy.
    It is just a three segment, four point diagram
    with set segment lengths and one unknown point.
    Set point are two gps satellites, and one tower.
    Unknown point is phone.
    Segment lights are between tower, and phone,
    and between satellites and phone.
    (delay sat1 to phone)+(delay phone to tower)= (true delay sat1)
    (delay sat2 to phone)+(delay phone to tower)=(true delay sat 2)
    Plug in values and determine what condition would produce that situation.
    If the phone can get three or four satellites, that makes an easy job
    that much easier.

    The hardest job a GPS receiver has is determining
    "satellite time", the rest is a cake walk.
  9. "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    news:qei5tv018vnrc49ursilsov0j4oqnkbvj1@Pern.rk...
    > On 2 Dec 2003 19:22:55 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) posted
    > in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    > >But how many cell sites actually have the corresponding aGPS equipment,
    > >and of those, how many are hooked up to E911 PSAPs?

    >
    > E911? I made a 911 call last night and the operator asked me what
    > number I was calling from. They don't even have caller ID. And this
    > isn't some little out-of-the-way Sheriff's department. We're one
    > county away from NYC.


    Sadly, a lot times the bigger organizations take longer to adopt new
    technology. The bigger the ship, the longer it takes to turn.


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
  10. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:10:08 -0500, "Thomas M. Goethe"
    <xspamgoethe11xxxxxx@lycos.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    >news:qei5tv018vnrc49ursilsov0j4oqnkbvj1@Pern.rk...
    >> On 2 Dec 2003 19:22:55 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) posted
    >> in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >>
    >> >But how many cell sites actually have the corresponding aGPS equipment,
    >> >and of those, how many are hooked up to E911 PSAPs?

    >>
    >> E911? I made a 911 call last night and the operator asked me what
    >> number I was calling from. They don't even have caller ID. And this
    >> isn't some little out-of-the-way Sheriff's department. We're one
    >> county away from NYC.

    >
    > Sadly, a lot times the bigger organizations take longer to adopt new
    >technology. The bigger the ship, the longer it takes to turn.


    They sure turned the tax (on) fast. We've been paying it since before
    I heard it announced.
  11. "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    news:ip67tvk1mh092vp26hnf7s1k3b110ktaf9@Pern.rk...
    > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:10:08 -0500, "Thomas M. Goethe"
    > <xspamgoethe11xxxxxx@lycos.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    > >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    > >news:qei5tv018vnrc49ursilsov0j4oqnkbvj1@Pern.rk...
    > >> On 2 Dec 2003 19:22:55 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) posted
    > >> in alt.cellular.verizon:
    > >>
    > >> >But how many cell sites actually have the corresponding aGPS

    equipment,
    > >> >and of those, how many are hooked up to E911 PSAPs?
    > >>
    > >> E911? I made a 911 call last night and the operator asked me what
    > >> number I was calling from. They don't even have caller ID. And this
    > >> isn't some little out-of-the-way Sheriff's department. We're one
    > >> county away from NYC.

    > >
    > > Sadly, a lot times the bigger organizations take longer to adopt new
    > >technology. The bigger the ship, the longer it takes to turn.

    >
    > They sure turned the tax (on) fast. We've been paying it since before
    > I heard it announced.


    That works a bit differently than technology :) However, the problem
    here is that the government agency has to have the equipment for E911 to
    work. The carrier may be able to supply the information, but if the agency
    doesn't have the gear, it doesn't matter. Makes you wonder what they are
    doing with that tax money, doesn't it?


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
  12. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:43:57 -0500, "Thomas M. Goethe"
    <xspamgoethe11xxxxxx@lycos.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    > That works a bit differently than technology :) However, the problem
    >here is that the government agency has to have the equipment for E911 to
    >work. The carrier may be able to supply the information, but if the agency
    >doesn't have the gear, it doesn't matter. Makes you wonder what they are
    >doing with that tax money, doesn't it?


    Being an ex-civil servant, I *know* what they're doing with it.
    They're wasting it on something that has nothing to do with the reason
    it's being collected.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?