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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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. "Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
     
  15. "Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
     
  16. "Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
     
  17. "Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
     
  18. "Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
     
  19. "Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
    news:jelpr1-m81.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...

    >
    > 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 was thinking of something along those lines- guaranteed coverage within 75
    feet of the cell (direct line-of-sight). No more, no less.


    >
    > 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.


    Its all out there, between the BBB, FCC and FTC, and has been for a long
    time. And its a lot easier to find than information about my local cable
    company.

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
     
  20. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest


    > verizon's coverage did not change. Only who it had roaming
    > agreements with changed. As another possibility, a roaming agreement
    > might stay the same, but the roaming carrier's coverage might change.
    > Neither is a reason for getting out of your contract.


    "Coverage" is an interesting word. When refering to a rate plan like AC,
    then removing an included roaming partner does in fact change the coverage
    area. Verizon did issue new maps when the coverage was removed.

    -Dan
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?