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

My experience with Verizon Wireless (Bad naturally) - detailed contracts would be good

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Dan Albrich, Jul 4, 2004.

  1. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     



    › See More: My experience with Verizon Wireless (Bad naturally) - detailed contracts would be good
  2. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  3. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  4. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  5. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  6. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  7. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  8. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  9. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  10. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  11. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  12. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  13. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Great idea, but riddled with problems. What if construction prevents signal
    > from getting someplace where it was previously available? What if a roaming
    > partner goes out of business? What if dropped calls occur outside of the
    > 'guaranteed service' area? All of these are well out of the carrier's
    > control, and yet you would hold them responsible for the actions of others.
    > These would never hold up as anything close to neglect of service.


    If I was the carrier, I would respond to the proposed legislation by offering
    two contracts. One would be the current ones with no guarantees, and the
    the other would be one hundred times the price with the guarantees and
    "let the consumers choose". If that option wasn't available then
    I'd just guarantee coverage in one street in one city.

    I don't think there is any way legislation could be worded that wouldn't
    provide wiggle room for the carriers to get around it. I think the real
    solution would be to make as much information public as possible such
    as locations of towers & frequencies, complaints etc.

    For example, have a look at this for cars:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    Public naming and shaming, coupled with statistics about complaint rates
    and locations would do the trick.

    Roger
     
  14. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > Not any more. That was discontinued for new/renewed plans effective May
    > 10.


    Good to know and I'm sorry to hear it.

    -Dan
     
  15. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > Not any more. That was discontinued for new/renewed plans effective May
    > 10.


    Good to know and I'm sorry to hear it.

    -Dan
     
  16. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > Not any more. That was discontinued for new/renewed plans effective May
    > 10.


    Good to know and I'm sorry to hear it.

    -Dan
     
  17. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > Not any more. That was discontinued for new/renewed plans effective May
    > 10.


    Good to know and I'm sorry to hear it.

    -Dan
     
  18. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > Not any more. That was discontinued for new/renewed plans effective May
    > 10.


    Good to know and I'm sorry to hear it.

    -Dan
     
  19. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > Not any more. That was discontinued for new/renewed plans effective May
    > 10.


    Good to know and I'm sorry to hear it.

    -Dan
     
  20. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    > Not any more. That was discontinued for new/renewed plans effective May
    > 10.


    Good to know and I'm sorry to hear it.

    -Dan
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?