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. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     



    › See More: My experience with Verizon Wireless (Bad naturally) - detailed contracts would be good
  2. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  3. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  4. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  5. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  6. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  7. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  8. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  9. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  10. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  11. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  12. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  13. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  14. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  15. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  16. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  17. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  18. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  19. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     
  20. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote in message
    news:hKidnbt2yIYsDHXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Your post reminds me of a major problem in the cellular industry. Not to

    say
    > that you did everything as well as you could, i.e. it would have been a

    good
    > idea to do a test call from Canada, and see how it got billed. Anyway, it
    > seems to me what we need is a written contract that details obligations
    > running both ways. What I as a consumer am required to do (i.e. pay my

    bill
    > on time etc), and specifically what the cellular provider is promising to

    do
    > for me. The latter is missing from all cellular contracts I've seen which
    > is why folks don't naturally prefer a written contract. I mean there is

    all
    > kinds of language that protects the carrier, but really nothing that
    > guarentees service to the consumer. The main thing I'd like to see is a
    > detailed coverage map that is guarenteed for the term of service. Should

    the
    > carrier need to reduce coverage due to a roaming agreement change, fine,
    > just allow me out of my contract without a fee (if this occurs). A

    detailed
    > feature list would also be nice, and if possible some quality of service
    > requirement (perhaps based on a certain number of dropped calls within a
    > time period which is deemed unacceptable and allows you out of your
    > contract.


    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.


    >
    > Anyway, this particular issue is an industry-wide problem. We learn by
    > experience how everything works, then make assumptions about what to

    expect.
    > The problem with this is that anything that isn't specifically stated as a
    > feature in writing can go away at any time and you have very limited
    > recourse. I will say that the problems you describe could have happened

    with
    > any carrier so this isn't a Verizon specific issue.


    Even features that are in writing go away (free paper bills, as an example).
    You do have recourse- you can choose to end your contract, according to the
    terms you signed up for.

    >
    > One particular example from your post: It's common knowledge that Verizon
    > customers who sign in the NE markets get free LD from the US to Canada.

    This
    > does not occur for Verizon folks in the western markets. I also doubt this
    > is specifically mentioned as a plan feature, but rather common knowledge

    of
    > how the billing system has worked in the past. Relying on a feature like
    > this is dangerous. This is the type of feature that can go away at any

    time.
    > I have never heard anyone say they got free roaming in Canada (save some

    old
    > SRN plans) unless they had a Canada specific option on their account.

    This
    > part seems to be just plain bad info period.
    >
    > Anyway, the parts of your story that have the most merit are also the

    types
    > of problem that can happen on *any* carrier today. The upshot being

    careful
    > research and much work on the consumer's part is basically required when
    > choosing a cellular plan.


    This doesn't apply to only cellular- try buying a computer, car, major
    appliance or even cable/satelliteTV service without doing the same amount of
    legwork. Its simply a part of being a good consumer.

    >
    > -Dan
    >
    >
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?