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

Free and clear nationwide question.

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by RØß Vargas, Aug 24, 2004.

  1. RØß Vargas

    RØß Vargas Guest

    In article <b9adncUn87moHrTcRVn-vw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net=20
    says...
    > Well, sure it is. If you have a Verizon Local DigitalChoice plan and your
    > home area is in City A, and you go to City B, you will be charged roaming=

    in
    > most cases. In my case, when I lived in Cleveland, my home area included =

    all
    > Verizon networks in Ohio, plus Detroit, but if I had a local plan and tra=

    veled
    > to, say, Dallas (to pick a random example), I'd be paying roaming even th=

    ough
    > Verizon has native coverage there.
    >=20
    > However, let us not forget that it's the same situation with Sprint if yo=

    u
    > choose a local plan. :)
    >=20


    I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope=20
    they don't mind.

    I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't=20
    *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember=20
    reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of=20
    local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas=20
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and=20
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the=20
    Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an=20
    example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be=20
    different in that roaming area.

    So when I saw Sprint's claim of "and no roaming while on the Sprint=20
    PCS network", my understanding has always been of it being a dig at=20
    that.

    Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,=20
    Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history=20
    can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's=20
    network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the=20
    past).


    --=20
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    "A thing moderately good is not so good=20
    as it ought to be. Moderation in temper=20
    is always a virtue, but moderation in=20
    principle is always a vice."
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
     



    › See More: Free and clear nationwide question.
  2. RØß Vargas

    RØß Vargas Guest

    In article <b9adncUn87moHrTcRVn-vw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net=20
    says...
    > Well, sure it is. If you have a Verizon Local DigitalChoice plan and your
    > home area is in City A, and you go to City B, you will be charged roaming=

    in
    > most cases. In my case, when I lived in Cleveland, my home area included =

    all
    > Verizon networks in Ohio, plus Detroit, but if I had a local plan and tra=

    veled
    > to, say, Dallas (to pick a random example), I'd be paying roaming even th=

    ough
    > Verizon has native coverage there.
    >=20
    > However, let us not forget that it's the same situation with Sprint if yo=

    u
    > choose a local plan. :)
    >=20


    I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope=20
    they don't mind.

    I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't=20
    *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember=20
    reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of=20
    local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas=20
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and=20
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the=20
    Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an=20
    example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be=20
    different in that roaming area.

    So when I saw Sprint's claim of "and no roaming while on the Sprint=20
    PCS network", my understanding has always been of it being a dig at=20
    that.

    Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,=20
    Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history=20
    can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's=20
    network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the=20
    past).


    --=20
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    "A thing moderately good is not so good=20
    as it ought to be. Moderation in temper=20
    is always a virtue, but moderation in=20
    principle is always a vice."
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
     
  3. RØß Vargas

    RØß Vargas Guest

    In article <b9adncUn87moHrTcRVn-vw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net=20
    says...
    > Well, sure it is. If you have a Verizon Local DigitalChoice plan and your
    > home area is in City A, and you go to City B, you will be charged roaming=

    in
    > most cases. In my case, when I lived in Cleveland, my home area included =

    all
    > Verizon networks in Ohio, plus Detroit, but if I had a local plan and tra=

    veled
    > to, say, Dallas (to pick a random example), I'd be paying roaming even th=

    ough
    > Verizon has native coverage there.
    >=20
    > However, let us not forget that it's the same situation with Sprint if yo=

    u
    > choose a local plan. :)
    >=20


    I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope=20
    they don't mind.

    I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't=20
    *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember=20
    reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of=20
    local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas=20
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and=20
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the=20
    Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an=20
    example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be=20
    different in that roaming area.

    So when I saw Sprint's claim of "and no roaming while on the Sprint=20
    PCS network", my understanding has always been of it being a dig at=20
    that.

    Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,=20
    Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history=20
    can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's=20
    network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the=20
    past).


    --=20
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    "A thing moderately good is not so good=20
    as it ought to be. Moderation in temper=20
    is always a virtue, but moderation in=20
    principle is always a vice."
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
     
  4. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    Verizon network.
    ---

    Yep, that's correct. For example, back in 2000, My Verizon phone roamed in
    Linn and Benton counties on you guessed it - Verizon. This was part of the
    growing pains of combining multiple cell phone companies under one name,
    each using different hardware for switching and other infostructure. This
    particular problem has long since been "fixed" at least superficially -- my
    phone now shows Verizon, non-roaming. There is a SID and NID boundry which
    for whatever reasons coincide with folks dropping calls when driving through
    this area. Given that both are native Verizon, you'd think they could work
    out the hand-off issues, but they never have.

    One example of different hardware effecting feature availability: Eugene
    Oregon has old Motorola switches which cannot adjust the amount of time (or
    rings) that you hear before going to voicemail. Portland and Salem Oregon
    use Lucent switches which can adjust the amount of time, and number of rings
    prior to going to voicemail. Verizon is sometimes jokingly called "version"
    wireless because features are not consistent across the country.

    This situation is getting better over time, as you would expect. For the
    most part, my phone works fine anytime I'm on Verizon's native network these
    days. Roaming on other CDMA carriers is somewhat frustrating as it is
    anything but transparent. When I roam, even digitally, I tend to lose voice
    mail indication, SMS text messaging, data, and in some cases even lose
    caller ID. I can roam and place and receive calls, but that's the only
    roaming function that is guarenteed to work. By comparison, both AT&T TDMA,
    and GSM has for years provided completely seemless roaming-- all features
    work so well you don't really even need to know you're roaming. GSM folks
    even get data when roaming. Maybe the CDMA carriers will someday have
    seemless roaming.

    -Dan

    PS: Lots of things got a whole lot better in the last couple years when
    Verizon converted their nationwide coverage to digital. When we had a lot of
    analog areas, things got pretty iffy even for very basic service (like
    receiving calls reliably).

    --
    Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
    http://cell.uoregon.edu
     
  5. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    Verizon network.
    ---

    Yep, that's correct. For example, back in 2000, My Verizon phone roamed in
    Linn and Benton counties on you guessed it - Verizon. This was part of the
    growing pains of combining multiple cell phone companies under one name,
    each using different hardware for switching and other infostructure. This
    particular problem has long since been "fixed" at least superficially -- my
    phone now shows Verizon, non-roaming. There is a SID and NID boundry which
    for whatever reasons coincide with folks dropping calls when driving through
    this area. Given that both are native Verizon, you'd think they could work
    out the hand-off issues, but they never have.

    One example of different hardware effecting feature availability: Eugene
    Oregon has old Motorola switches which cannot adjust the amount of time (or
    rings) that you hear before going to voicemail. Portland and Salem Oregon
    use Lucent switches which can adjust the amount of time, and number of rings
    prior to going to voicemail. Verizon is sometimes jokingly called "version"
    wireless because features are not consistent across the country.

    This situation is getting better over time, as you would expect. For the
    most part, my phone works fine anytime I'm on Verizon's native network these
    days. Roaming on other CDMA carriers is somewhat frustrating as it is
    anything but transparent. When I roam, even digitally, I tend to lose voice
    mail indication, SMS text messaging, data, and in some cases even lose
    caller ID. I can roam and place and receive calls, but that's the only
    roaming function that is guarenteed to work. By comparison, both AT&T TDMA,
    and GSM has for years provided completely seemless roaming-- all features
    work so well you don't really even need to know you're roaming. GSM folks
    even get data when roaming. Maybe the CDMA carriers will someday have
    seemless roaming.

    -Dan

    PS: Lots of things got a whole lot better in the last couple years when
    Verizon converted their nationwide coverage to digital. When we had a lot of
    analog areas, things got pretty iffy even for very basic service (like
    receiving calls reliably).

    --
    Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
    http://cell.uoregon.edu
     
  6. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    Verizon network.
    ---

    Yep, that's correct. For example, back in 2000, My Verizon phone roamed in
    Linn and Benton counties on you guessed it - Verizon. This was part of the
    growing pains of combining multiple cell phone companies under one name,
    each using different hardware for switching and other infostructure. This
    particular problem has long since been "fixed" at least superficially -- my
    phone now shows Verizon, non-roaming. There is a SID and NID boundry which
    for whatever reasons coincide with folks dropping calls when driving through
    this area. Given that both are native Verizon, you'd think they could work
    out the hand-off issues, but they never have.

    One example of different hardware effecting feature availability: Eugene
    Oregon has old Motorola switches which cannot adjust the amount of time (or
    rings) that you hear before going to voicemail. Portland and Salem Oregon
    use Lucent switches which can adjust the amount of time, and number of rings
    prior to going to voicemail. Verizon is sometimes jokingly called "version"
    wireless because features are not consistent across the country.

    This situation is getting better over time, as you would expect. For the
    most part, my phone works fine anytime I'm on Verizon's native network these
    days. Roaming on other CDMA carriers is somewhat frustrating as it is
    anything but transparent. When I roam, even digitally, I tend to lose voice
    mail indication, SMS text messaging, data, and in some cases even lose
    caller ID. I can roam and place and receive calls, but that's the only
    roaming function that is guarenteed to work. By comparison, both AT&T TDMA,
    and GSM has for years provided completely seemless roaming-- all features
    work so well you don't really even need to know you're roaming. GSM folks
    even get data when roaming. Maybe the CDMA carriers will someday have
    seemless roaming.

    -Dan

    PS: Lots of things got a whole lot better in the last couple years when
    Verizon converted their nationwide coverage to digital. When we had a lot of
    analog areas, things got pretty iffy even for very basic service (like
    receiving calls reliably).

    --
    Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
    http://cell.uoregon.edu
     
  7. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    Verizon network.
    ---

    Yep, that's correct. For example, back in 2000, My Verizon phone roamed in
    Linn and Benton counties on you guessed it - Verizon. This was part of the
    growing pains of combining multiple cell phone companies under one name,
    each using different hardware for switching and other infostructure. This
    particular problem has long since been "fixed" at least superficially -- my
    phone now shows Verizon, non-roaming. There is a SID and NID boundry which
    for whatever reasons coincide with folks dropping calls when driving through
    this area. Given that both are native Verizon, you'd think they could work
    out the hand-off issues, but they never have.

    One example of different hardware effecting feature availability: Eugene
    Oregon has old Motorola switches which cannot adjust the amount of time (or
    rings) that you hear before going to voicemail. Portland and Salem Oregon
    use Lucent switches which can adjust the amount of time, and number of rings
    prior to going to voicemail. Verizon is sometimes jokingly called "version"
    wireless because features are not consistent across the country.

    This situation is getting better over time, as you would expect. For the
    most part, my phone works fine anytime I'm on Verizon's native network these
    days. Roaming on other CDMA carriers is somewhat frustrating as it is
    anything but transparent. When I roam, even digitally, I tend to lose voice
    mail indication, SMS text messaging, data, and in some cases even lose
    caller ID. I can roam and place and receive calls, but that's the only
    roaming function that is guarenteed to work. By comparison, both AT&T TDMA,
    and GSM has for years provided completely seemless roaming-- all features
    work so well you don't really even need to know you're roaming. GSM folks
    even get data when roaming. Maybe the CDMA carriers will someday have
    seemless roaming.

    -Dan

    PS: Lots of things got a whole lot better in the last couple years when
    Verizon converted their nationwide coverage to digital. When we had a lot of
    analog areas, things got pretty iffy even for very basic service (like
    receiving calls reliably).

    --
    Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
    http://cell.uoregon.edu
     
  8. IMHO

    IMHO Guest

    As far as I know, with VZW it is all a matter of plans.
    Local Plans: Get roaming charges outside home area.
    America's Choice: No roaming in any VZW native area & Free roaming on the
    Extended Network (Roaming Partners)
    National Single Rate: Same as America's Choice PLUS free roaming anywhere
    in the US where your phone can get a signal.
    I have found that all features work whenever in any VZW native area and
    sometimes when on the Extended Network - including Internet connections thru
    the phone and from my laptop.

    "RØß Vargas" <robjvargas@comcâst.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1b95d6fbfe0f0ab5989690@netnews.comcast.net...
    In article <b9adncUn87moHrTcRVn-vw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net
    says...
    > Well, sure it is. If you have a Verizon Local DigitalChoice plan and your
    > home area is in City A, and you go to City B, you will be charged roaming

    in
    > most cases. In my case, when I lived in Cleveland, my home area included

    all
    > Verizon networks in Ohio, plus Detroit, but if I had a local plan and

    traveled
    > to, say, Dallas (to pick a random example), I'd be paying roaming even

    though
    > Verizon has native coverage there.
    >
    > However, let us not forget that it's the same situation with Sprint if you
    > choose a local plan. :)
    >


    I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope
    they don't mind.

    I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't
    *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember
    reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of
    local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an
    example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be
    different in that roaming area.

    So when I saw Sprint's claim of "and no roaming while on the Sprint
    PCS network", my understanding has always been of it being a dig at
    that.

    Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    past).


    --
    RØß
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    "A thing moderately good is not so good
    as it ought to be. Moderation in temper
    is always a virtue, but moderation in
    principle is always a vice."
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
     
  9. IMHO

    IMHO Guest

    As far as I know, with VZW it is all a matter of plans.
    Local Plans: Get roaming charges outside home area.
    America's Choice: No roaming in any VZW native area & Free roaming on the
    Extended Network (Roaming Partners)
    National Single Rate: Same as America's Choice PLUS free roaming anywhere
    in the US where your phone can get a signal.
    I have found that all features work whenever in any VZW native area and
    sometimes when on the Extended Network - including Internet connections thru
    the phone and from my laptop.

    "RØß Vargas" <robjvargas@comcâst.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1b95d6fbfe0f0ab5989690@netnews.comcast.net...
    In article <b9adncUn87moHrTcRVn-vw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net
    says...
    > Well, sure it is. If you have a Verizon Local DigitalChoice plan and your
    > home area is in City A, and you go to City B, you will be charged roaming

    in
    > most cases. In my case, when I lived in Cleveland, my home area included

    all
    > Verizon networks in Ohio, plus Detroit, but if I had a local plan and

    traveled
    > to, say, Dallas (to pick a random example), I'd be paying roaming even

    though
    > Verizon has native coverage there.
    >
    > However, let us not forget that it's the same situation with Sprint if you
    > choose a local plan. :)
    >


    I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope
    they don't mind.

    I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't
    *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember
    reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of
    local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an
    example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be
    different in that roaming area.

    So when I saw Sprint's claim of "and no roaming while on the Sprint
    PCS network", my understanding has always been of it being a dig at
    that.

    Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    past).


    --
    RØß
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    "A thing moderately good is not so good
    as it ought to be. Moderation in temper
    is always a virtue, but moderation in
    principle is always a vice."
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
     
  10. IMHO

    IMHO Guest

    As far as I know, with VZW it is all a matter of plans.
    Local Plans: Get roaming charges outside home area.
    America's Choice: No roaming in any VZW native area & Free roaming on the
    Extended Network (Roaming Partners)
    National Single Rate: Same as America's Choice PLUS free roaming anywhere
    in the US where your phone can get a signal.
    I have found that all features work whenever in any VZW native area and
    sometimes when on the Extended Network - including Internet connections thru
    the phone and from my laptop.

    "RØß Vargas" <robjvargas@comcâst.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1b95d6fbfe0f0ab5989690@netnews.comcast.net...
    In article <b9adncUn87moHrTcRVn-vw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net
    says...
    > Well, sure it is. If you have a Verizon Local DigitalChoice plan and your
    > home area is in City A, and you go to City B, you will be charged roaming

    in
    > most cases. In my case, when I lived in Cleveland, my home area included

    all
    > Verizon networks in Ohio, plus Detroit, but if I had a local plan and

    traveled
    > to, say, Dallas (to pick a random example), I'd be paying roaming even

    though
    > Verizon has native coverage there.
    >
    > However, let us not forget that it's the same situation with Sprint if you
    > choose a local plan. :)
    >


    I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope
    they don't mind.

    I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't
    *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember
    reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of
    local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an
    example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be
    different in that roaming area.

    So when I saw Sprint's claim of "and no roaming while on the Sprint
    PCS network", my understanding has always been of it being a dig at
    that.

    Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    past).


    --
    RØß
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    "A thing moderately good is not so good
    as it ought to be. Moderation in temper
    is always a virtue, but moderation in
    principle is always a vice."
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
     
  11. IMHO

    IMHO Guest

    As far as I know, with VZW it is all a matter of plans.
    Local Plans: Get roaming charges outside home area.
    America's Choice: No roaming in any VZW native area & Free roaming on the
    Extended Network (Roaming Partners)
    National Single Rate: Same as America's Choice PLUS free roaming anywhere
    in the US where your phone can get a signal.
    I have found that all features work whenever in any VZW native area and
    sometimes when on the Extended Network - including Internet connections thru
    the phone and from my laptop.

    "RØß Vargas" <robjvargas@comcâst.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1b95d6fbfe0f0ab5989690@netnews.comcast.net...
    In article <b9adncUn87moHrTcRVn-vw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net
    says...
    > Well, sure it is. If you have a Verizon Local DigitalChoice plan and your
    > home area is in City A, and you go to City B, you will be charged roaming

    in
    > most cases. In my case, when I lived in Cleveland, my home area included

    all
    > Verizon networks in Ohio, plus Detroit, but if I had a local plan and

    traveled
    > to, say, Dallas (to pick a random example), I'd be paying roaming even

    though
    > Verizon has native coverage there.
    >
    > However, let us not forget that it's the same situation with Sprint if you
    > choose a local plan. :)
    >


    I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope
    they don't mind.

    I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't
    *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember
    reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of
    local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an
    example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be
    different in that roaming area.

    So when I saw Sprint's claim of "and no roaming while on the Sprint
    PCS network", my understanding has always been of it being a dig at
    that.

    Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    past).


    --
    RØß
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    "A thing moderately good is not so good
    as it ought to be. Moderation in temper
    is always a virtue, but moderation in
    principle is always a vice."
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
     
  12. Steve Sobol

    Steve Sobol Guest

    RØß Vargas wrote:

    > I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope
    > they don't mind.


    Hopefully not. It's on-topic.

    > I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't
    > *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember
    > reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of
    > local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    > was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    > your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    > Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an
    > example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be
    > different in that roaming area.


    OK, the only way I can see this happening is if you have a 1900MHz phone and
    you travel somewhere where Verizon only has 800MHz - or (more likely) vice
    versa. They're doing a lot of 1900 MHz *overlays* now, but they used to be
    mostly 800 MHz, except for the former Primeco markets and the areas in Florida
    where there were legacy 1900 MHz networks. For a year or two, VZW stopped
    selling phones that weren't tri-mode phones, so it wasn't an issue.

    > Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    > Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    > can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    > network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    > past).


    As most of the regulars in the SPCS and Verizon newsgroups know, I was a
    Verizon customer for almost four years; from September 2000 to August 20th of
    this year (assuming Verizon has properly cancelled my account). I started with
    them shortly after the company came into existence. I think I have a pretty
    good recollection of what happened, but maybe others could confirm my memories?
    I'm pretty sure I'm right.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  13. Steve Sobol

    Steve Sobol Guest

    RØß Vargas wrote:

    > I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope
    > they don't mind.


    Hopefully not. It's on-topic.

    > I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't
    > *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember
    > reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of
    > local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    > was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    > your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    > Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an
    > example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be
    > different in that roaming area.


    OK, the only way I can see this happening is if you have a 1900MHz phone and
    you travel somewhere where Verizon only has 800MHz - or (more likely) vice
    versa. They're doing a lot of 1900 MHz *overlays* now, but they used to be
    mostly 800 MHz, except for the former Primeco markets and the areas in Florida
    where there were legacy 1900 MHz networks. For a year or two, VZW stopped
    selling phones that weren't tri-mode phones, so it wasn't an issue.

    > Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    > Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    > can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    > network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    > past).


    As most of the regulars in the SPCS and Verizon newsgroups know, I was a
    Verizon customer for almost four years; from September 2000 to August 20th of
    this year (assuming Verizon has properly cancelled my account). I started with
    them shortly after the company came into existence. I think I have a pretty
    good recollection of what happened, but maybe others could confirm my memories?
    I'm pretty sure I'm right.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  14. Steve Sobol

    Steve Sobol Guest

    RØß Vargas wrote:

    > I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope
    > they don't mind.


    Hopefully not. It's on-topic.

    > I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't
    > *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember
    > reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of
    > local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    > was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    > your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    > Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an
    > example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be
    > different in that roaming area.


    OK, the only way I can see this happening is if you have a 1900MHz phone and
    you travel somewhere where Verizon only has 800MHz - or (more likely) vice
    versa. They're doing a lot of 1900 MHz *overlays* now, but they used to be
    mostly 800 MHz, except for the former Primeco markets and the areas in Florida
    where there were legacy 1900 MHz networks. For a year or two, VZW stopped
    selling phones that weren't tri-mode phones, so it wasn't an issue.

    > Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    > Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    > can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    > network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    > past).


    As most of the regulars in the SPCS and Verizon newsgroups know, I was a
    Verizon customer for almost four years; from September 2000 to August 20th of
    this year (assuming Verizon has properly cancelled my account). I started with
    them shortly after the company came into existence. I think I have a pretty
    good recollection of what happened, but maybe others could confirm my memories?
    I'm pretty sure I'm right.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  15. Steve Sobol

    Steve Sobol Guest

    RØß Vargas wrote:

    > I've added Verizon's NG into the middle of this discussion. I hope
    > they don't mind.


    Hopefully not. It's on-topic.

    > I can no longer locate where it is that I heard this, and I don't
    > *think* it was Sprint PCS while I worked there. I seem to remember
    > reading somewhere, though, that this was more than just a case of
    > local area plans. That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    > was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    > your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    > Verizon network. It was the kind of roaming where, just to use an
    > example from SPCS by analogy, even the * and # codes could be
    > different in that roaming area.


    OK, the only way I can see this happening is if you have a 1900MHz phone and
    you travel somewhere where Verizon only has 800MHz - or (more likely) vice
    versa. They're doing a lot of 1900 MHz *overlays* now, but they used to be
    mostly 800 MHz, except for the former Primeco markets and the areas in Florida
    where there were legacy 1900 MHz networks. For a year or two, VZW stopped
    selling phones that weren't tri-mode phones, so it wasn't an issue.

    > Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    > Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    > can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    > network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    > past).


    As most of the regulars in the SPCS and Verizon newsgroups know, I was a
    Verizon customer for almost four years; from September 2000 to August 20th of
    this year (assuming Verizon has properly cancelled my account). I started with
    them shortly after the company came into existence. I think I have a pretty
    good recollection of what happened, but maybe others could confirm my memories?
    I'm pretty sure I'm right.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  16. In article <MPG.1b95d6fbfe0f0ab5989690@netnews.comcast.net>,
    RØß Vargas <robjvargas@comcâst.net> wrote:

    > Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    > Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    > can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    > network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    > past).


    If you're out of your home area, but within the scope of Verizon's
    free-roaming area, you'll get one roaming indicator (it depends on the
    phone), but won't be charged roaming charges. If you're not within the
    scope of Verizon's free-roaming area, you'll get a different roaming
    indicator, and will be charged roaming charges.

    On my phone, the difference between the two indicators is whether the
    indicator is solid or it blinks.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.
     
  17. In article <MPG.1b95d6fbfe0f0ab5989690@netnews.comcast.net>,
    RØß Vargas <robjvargas@comcâst.net> wrote:

    > Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    > Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    > can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    > network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    > past).


    If you're out of your home area, but within the scope of Verizon's
    free-roaming area, you'll get one roaming indicator (it depends on the
    phone), but won't be charged roaming charges. If you're not within the
    scope of Verizon's free-roaming area, you'll get a different roaming
    indicator, and will be charged roaming charges.

    On my phone, the difference between the two indicators is whether the
    indicator is solid or it blinks.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.
     
  18. In article <MPG.1b95d6fbfe0f0ab5989690@netnews.comcast.net>,
    RØß Vargas <robjvargas@comcâst.net> wrote:

    > Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    > Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    > can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    > network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    > past).


    If you're out of your home area, but within the scope of Verizon's
    free-roaming area, you'll get one roaming indicator (it depends on the
    phone), but won't be charged roaming charges. If you're not within the
    scope of Verizon's free-roaming area, you'll get a different roaming
    indicator, and will be charged roaming charges.

    On my phone, the difference between the two indicators is whether the
    indicator is solid or it blinks.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.
     
  19. In article <MPG.1b95d6fbfe0f0ab5989690@netnews.comcast.net>,
    RØß Vargas <robjvargas@comcâst.net> wrote:

    > Hopefully, I've made what I understand to be so more clear for you,
    > Steve. And maybe someone with better knowledge of Verizon's history
    > can either confirm or refute my understanding of how Verizon's
    > network works (or, at least, how it did work at one time in the
    > past).


    If you're out of your home area, but within the scope of Verizon's
    free-roaming area, you'll get one roaming indicator (it depends on the
    phone), but won't be charged roaming charges. If you're not within the
    scope of Verizon's free-roaming area, you'll get a different roaming
    indicator, and will be charged roaming charges.

    On my phone, the difference between the two indicators is whether the
    indicator is solid or it blinks.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry.
     
  20. IMHO

    IMHO Guest

    "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:X7ednVubRLf1vbHcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
    > That the bought-up nature of some Verizon areas
    > was such that, even as a Verizon customer, you could be roaming (and
    > your phone would actually indicate roaming) even while using the
    > Verizon network.
    > ---
    >
    > Yep, that's correct. For example, back in 2000, My Verizon phone roamed

    in
    > Linn and Benton counties on you guessed it - Verizon. This was part of

    the
    > growing pains of combining multiple cell phone companies under one name,
    > each using different hardware for switching and other infostructure. This
    > particular problem has long since been "fixed" at least superficially --

    my
    > phone now shows Verizon, non-roaming. There is a SID and NID boundry

    which
    > for whatever reasons coincide with folks dropping calls when driving

    through
    > this area. Given that both are native Verizon, you'd think they could

    work
    > out the hand-off issues, but they never have.
    >
    > One example of different hardware effecting feature availability: Eugene
    > Oregon has old Motorola switches which cannot adjust the amount of time

    (or
    > rings) that you hear before going to voicemail. Portland and Salem Oregon
    > use Lucent switches which can adjust the amount of time, and number of

    rings
    > prior to going to voicemail. Verizon is sometimes jokingly called

    "version"
    > wireless because features are not consistent across the country.
    >
    > This situation is getting better over time, as you would expect. For the
    > most part, my phone works fine anytime I'm on Verizon's native network

    these
    > days. Roaming on other CDMA carriers is somewhat frustrating as it is
    > anything but transparent. When I roam, even digitally, I tend to lose

    voice
    > mail indication, SMS text messaging, data, and in some cases even lose
    > caller ID. I can roam and place and receive calls, but that's the only
    > roaming function that is guarenteed to work. By comparison, both AT&T

    TDMA,
    > and GSM has for years provided completely seemless roaming-- all features
    > work so well you don't really even need to know you're roaming. GSM folks
    > even get data when roaming. Maybe the CDMA carriers will someday have
    > seemless roaming.
    >
    > -Dan
    >
    > PS: Lots of things got a whole lot better in the last couple years when
    > Verizon converted their nationwide coverage to digital. When we had a lot

    of
    > analog areas, things got pretty iffy even for very basic service (like
    > receiving calls reliably).
    >
    > --
    > Eugene, Oregon -- Pacific Northwest
    > http://cell.uoregon.edu
    >
    >

    Question: When roaming in analog, do all the AT&T TDMA and GSM features
    work?

    I have roamed with digital CDMA coverage in KS and everything except EN/MOU
    worked - qnc even worked. Digital CDMA coverage around here is almost
    everywhere. When checking most non-CDMA carriers around here roam in analog
    over most of the state.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?