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

Roaming call refused from UP Michigan

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Bert Hyman, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. Andy Yee

    Andy Yee Guest

    It's possible that Verizon had no agreement with the local provider...

    Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com:

    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >




    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Yee E-Mail: ayee AT mn dot rr dot com
    President Home Page: http://home.mn.rr.com/andyyee
    New Directions Engineering, Inc.

    Godwin's Law: As a USENET thread grows, the probability of a reference
    to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.00.
    Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
    recognized that the poster has LOST the argument.
     



    › See More: Roaming call refused from UP Michigan
  2. Andy Yee

    Andy Yee Guest

    It's possible that Verizon had no agreement with the local provider...

    Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com:

    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >




    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Yee E-Mail: ayee AT mn dot rr dot com
    President Home Page: http://home.mn.rr.com/andyyee
    New Directions Engineering, Inc.

    Godwin's Law: As a USENET thread grows, the probability of a reference
    to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.00.
    Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
    recognized that the poster has LOST the argument.
     
  3. Andy Yee

    Andy Yee Guest

    It's possible that Verizon had no agreement with the local provider...

    Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com:

    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >




    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Yee E-Mail: ayee AT mn dot rr dot com
    President Home Page: http://home.mn.rr.com/andyyee
    New Directions Engineering, Inc.

    Godwin's Law: As a USENET thread grows, the probability of a reference
    to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.00.
    Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
    recognized that the poster has LOST the argument.
     
  4. Andy Yee

    Andy Yee Guest

    It's possible that Verizon had no agreement with the local provider...

    Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com:

    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >




    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Yee E-Mail: ayee AT mn dot rr dot com
    President Home Page: http://home.mn.rr.com/andyyee
    New Directions Engineering, Inc.

    Godwin's Law: As a USENET thread grows, the probability of a reference
    to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.00.
    Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
    recognized that the poster has LOST the argument.
     
  5. Andy Yee

    Andy Yee Guest

    It's possible that Verizon had no agreement with the local provider...

    Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com:

    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >




    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Yee E-Mail: ayee AT mn dot rr dot com
    President Home Page: http://home.mn.rr.com/andyyee
    New Directions Engineering, Inc.

    Godwin's Law: As a USENET thread grows, the probability of a reference
    to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.00.
    Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
    recognized that the poster has LOST the argument.
     
  6. Andy Yee

    Andy Yee Guest

    It's possible that Verizon had no agreement with the local provider...

    Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com:

    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >




    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Yee E-Mail: ayee AT mn dot rr dot com
    President Home Page: http://home.mn.rr.com/andyyee
    New Directions Engineering, Inc.

    Godwin's Law: As a USENET thread grows, the probability of a reference
    to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.00.
    Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
    recognized that the poster has LOST the argument.
     
  7. Andy Yee

    Andy Yee Guest

    It's possible that Verizon had no agreement with the local provider...

    Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com:

    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >




    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Yee E-Mail: ayee AT mn dot rr dot com
    President Home Page: http://home.mn.rr.com/andyyee
    New Directions Engineering, Inc.

    Godwin's Law: As a USENET thread grows, the probability of a reference
    to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.00.
    Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
    recognized that the poster has LOST the argument.
     
  8. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  9. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  10. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  11. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  12. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  13. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  14. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  15. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  16. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  17. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  18. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  19. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     
  20. George

    George Guest

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950B63C699E0EVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
    > We have a ->really antique local-only plan which has us roaming
    > almost everywhere (it's cheap; 2 phones and 100 shared minutes for
    > $30/month). That's never been a problem because the cost of most
    > calls made when we're out of town are reimbursed.
    >
    > But, my wife was traveling in the upper peninsula of Michigan (Iron
    > River) and while she had a signal, when she tried to call back to her
    > office she got some sort of intercept message telling her that her
    > call couldn't (or wouldn't) be completed (sorry, she doesn't recall
    > the exact message).
    >
    > I was under the assumption that so long as the phone had a useable
    > signal of some sort, the carrier would complete the call, even if (or
    > maybe especially if) the call would cost a few dollars.
    >
    > What might have been going on?
    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com


    There is an area I sometimes visit that was exactly like that. Apparantly
    VZW had no agreement of any kind with them. You would try to make a call and
    it presented a weirdly worded message, if you answered additional prompts it
    eventually asked for a credit card. About 6 months ago it became extended
    network so now the calls go thru without a problem.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?