1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  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!
    Dismiss Notice

ATT vs. Verizon

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Brian Grigg, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     



    › See More: ATT vs. Verizon
  2. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  3. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  4. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  5. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  6. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  7. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  8. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  9. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  10. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  11. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  12. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  13. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  14. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  15. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  16. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  17. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  18. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  19. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     
  20. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    > (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    > coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    > able to make calls.

    --> A matter of opinion, but it matters a great deal to me. Nothing pisses
    me off more than lacking caller ID information, and voicemail indication
    when roaming. My prior experience with T-Mobile (then voicestream) and later
    AT&T gave me absolutely *perfect* feature delivery even when roaming. I
    could text message someone on AT&T TDMA five years ago, yet Verizon
    continues to lack this basic capability when roaming. I leave it to the
    reader of this discussion to determine if this lack of features is
    significant or not. If you've been spoiled having this feature transparency
    when roaming (on another carrier) you would not even guess that carriers
    like Verizon lack this basic functionality.


    > Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    > last year.

    -> AT&T absolutely kicks Verizon's butt when it comes to any place you can
    name on I5, and this is new this year -- last year I would have agreed with
    you. Check it now, and see what you think.


    > Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    --> I agree. It's hard to imagine how the best cellular carrier in the US
    went from undisputable first place to an "also ran" in the industry and in a
    record short time. AT&T's leadership should receive no bonus, they should
    all be fired for their complete lack of vision and stewardship.

    > Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps.

    --> I agree completely. Even where they show coverage, you may not have it.
    Although I can say, given that the maps tend to be "optimistic" that places
    where no coverage is shown will be without coverage.

    > Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    > as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    > (basically, weather and email).

    --> Yep, this was a very basic misunderstanding on the part of AT&T's
    management. The old system worked better, even if it was "slower" for file
    transfers. If the data you are getting is text on a cell phone it doesn't
    matter if its 9600 baud or T1 speed...

    > That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    > the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    > States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    > between All-digital and everything else.

    --> AT&T + Cingular have already answered with GSM america plans. Anywhere
    there's GSM, there's no roaming charges which is directly comparable to
    America's choice. Major cities are included with both plans. Verizon wins
    on rural coverage mainly because AT&T no longer utilizes/advertises any
    analog or GAIT phones-- this is a mistake for AT&T and Verizon will continue
    to win the war provided they can accomodate the huge swell in new customers.

    > No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    > much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    --> My take is that there is no one working in a leadership position at
    Verizon that "gets it." Even if they do have someone that gets it, they need
    to convince the real leaders in design to produce models that work for CDMA.
    The GSM selection just keeps getting better, and I doubt the CDMA phone
    selection will improve any time soon. The loss of Sony Ericcson was major,
    and so was Nokia. Nokia now makes a few CDMA phones, but nothing of
    particular merit. Most of their CDMA phones are low-end, or use designs
    that have been available for several years (no new interesting stuff
    happening there).

    > I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    --> Yes, the VX4400 is actually a notable improvement from years past. In
    other words Verizon's now shipping phones that would have been competitive
    say five years ago.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?