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. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     



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

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  3. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  4. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  5. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  6. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  7. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  8. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  9. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  10. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  11. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  12. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  13. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  14. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  15. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  16. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  17. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  18. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  19. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     
  20. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:37:50 -0500, Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >Dan Albrich <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >I think it could be argued either way. It's not NATIVE coverage but it is
    >coverage that is billed as home-area coverage, so you could make either
    >argument convincingly.


    And more importantly, it was *advertised* as home-area coverage.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Yes, I am a doctor, but I'm Presbyterian. Will that be all right?"
    - Maj. Charles E. Winchester III
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?