1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  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!

Sometimes...The Phone Matters

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Mike, Nov 26, 2003.

  1. Bill Radio

    Bill Radio Guest

    I've driven 585 hundreds of times and never noticed losing the Verizon
    signal. Additionally, I was amazed to find Sprint also covers 585 all the
    way from Akron to Wooster, with one stretch of no service near Orrville that
    may be filled now. To say that "there is literally nothing" is in the eye
    of the beholder. You will always see a house...or a car. But drive along
    I-70 in western Kansas or eastern Colorado at night, and you'd think you
    were on the moon...not a light anywhere but the stars. And those areas also
    have perfect cellular service. And you guys in Ohio are allowed to have
    those nice tall 200' towers, something we rarely see in the Rockies.

    At first blush I thought it would be a PRL problem, but an older PRL would
    contain Sprint as a roaming partner, so even if she did lose VZ service, it
    would roam on Sprint.

    But the original statement claims, "a sizable chunk of her drive to work..."
    Since over 75% of that commute would be through the city limits of Akron,
    Stow, Kent, Norton and maybe Barberton, all cities with excellent cellular
    service from everyone, especially VZ (maybe not Northcoast), I am wondering
    how big is a chunk? Could it be there is a dead spot just north of the
    Smuckers plant? It can't be too big, you're on 585, and in good coverage,
    within 5 miles. I think the chunk seems big, but it could only be a few
    miles at the most.

    Bill Radio
    Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
    http://www.mountainwireless.com


    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:sNmdnUbjC-VrFlii4p2dnA@lmi.net...
    > Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >>Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >>> On another popular cell phone forum, a woman who lives not terribly
    > >>> far from my NE Ohio location told of her phone...an Audiovox 8600 on
    > >>> VZW not having service on a decent chunk of her drive to work, from
    > >>> one NE Ohio town to another.
    > >>
    > >>Specifically... which town to which town?

    > >
    > > Orrville to Kent. She was losing signal along a part of Ohio 585.

    >
    > I've driven along Ohio 585 between Ohio 21 (western edge of Summit
    > County) and Wooster. Only once, though, doing deliveries for my father,

    and
    > the phone I had was an Alltel phone that I transferred to Verizon and it

    has
    > a history of not doing well with questionable signals in the first place.
    >
    > There is literally nothing along 585 - you can turn off and go to

    Marshallville
    > or Doylestown or some of the smaller towns but there aren't any, um, "big"
    > cities until you hit Wooster. I was driving a box truck so I was more
    > concerned with not getting into an accident than I was with checking my
    > signal.
    >



    › See More: Sometimes...The Phone Matters
  2. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    "Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:msbbsvgt4hlr5no5oongbk1u4vr4267mkc@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 05:03:21 GMT, "N9WOS"
    > <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >
    > >It helps control overloading on the system.
    > >The people with the lowest number will be bumped off first,
    > >followed by higher numbers as overloading gets worse.

    >
    > It doesn't make sense to me that people with low last numbers would
    > get bumped off first. It's almost unfair service! Assuming this is
    > as you describe. I've never heard of that until your message and I'm
    > skeptical, still. What, would I gain by telling the person
    > programming my phone "psst, make me a 9"?
    >
    > I can see the public safety agencies, etc. getting less "bumpable"
    > numbers.


    All right...... I'll post links to phone programming pages and
    other documents that mentions it.

    http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/cell/uniden/unidencp1700.txt

    http://www.phreak.de/infos/english/cpp2.txt

    http://www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/gait-h-2-1-5-2.pdf

    http://www.century-sun.net/image1/CDMA_AT.pdf
    ............... (on and on)

    These list it, but don't explain it.
    http://www.collusion.org/Article.cfm?ID=411

    http://www.totse.com/en/phreak/phone_phun/motnote.html

    http://phones.stevecrow.net/lg_vx10.htm

    ............(on and on)
    There is so many pages available.
    These are just the tip of the iceberg
  3. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > All right...... I'll post links to phone programming pages and
    > other documents that mentions it.
    >
    > http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/cell/uniden/unidencp1700.txt
    >
    > http://www.phreak.de/infos/english/cpp2.txt
    >
    > http://www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/gait-h-2-1-5-2.pdf
    >
    > http://www.century-sun.net/image1/CDMA_AT.pdf
    > .............. (on and on)


    If I had something to say about it in a cell company, I would
    base their AOC on the number of minutes used by the subscriber.

    The AOC will be updated when ever he
    has his phone programmed, based on his
    previous usage.

    I would use this formula

    5(user base Average used minutes)
    ------------------------------------
    (individual's average used minutes)

    "User base average used minutes"
    is the average minutes used per person by
    your entire user base.

    "individual's average used minutes"
    is the current average minutes used by
    the person in question, when he has
    his phone programmed.

    If the person uses about the same number
    of minutes as the average user base, I would
    assign him a AOC of 5.

    If the user uses half the average user minutes(or less)
    then he gets an AOC of 10

    If he uses two times the averages user minutes,
    then he gets an AOC of 2

    If he uses four of five times the average user minutes,
    he will have an AOC of 1.

    If he uses more than five time the average user minutes,
    then he gets an AOC of 0

    That way, when you have a system overload,
    the system will kick off the people that are most likely
    tying up the largest part of the system.
    And the people that make short calls,and use less air
    time, will be given priority.
  4. Bill Radio <br@mountainwirelessnospan.com> wrote:
    > were on the moon...not a light anywhere but the stars. And those areas also
    > have perfect cellular service. And you guys in Ohio are allowed to have
    > those nice tall 200' towers, something we rarely see in the Rockies.


    Ohio is also a lot less, umm, "hilly" than the Rockies. :> and that helps.

    > But the original statement claims, "a sizable chunk of her drive to work..."
    > Since over 75% of that commute would be through the city limits of Akron,
    > Stow, Kent, Norton and maybe Barberton, all cities with excellent cellular
    > service from everyone, especially VZ (maybe not Northcoast),


    Been in Doylestown and Norton with an NCPCS phone - no signal there a couple
    years ago, and I'm sure there is still none.


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  5. Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > I'm curious...if VZW's NE Ohio network went away for some reason,
    > would phones roam on ANY carrier here? Would you have to/be able to
    > force Alltel/Sprint/whoever? Or would the lack of local roaming
    > partners in the PRL drop you through to one of those carriers
    > (presumably at roaming costs)?


    With the removal of Sprint in, when was it, early 02, there were officially
    no other Cleveland carriers in the PRLs. Not that I know of, anyhow.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  6. Mike

    Mike Guest

    On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:10:13 GMT, "N9WOS"
    <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    >
    >All right...... I'll post links to phone programming pages and
    >other documents that mentions it.


    Unless it's buried in the 90 to 200 page PDF files linked there, the
    closest we get is this:

    ------

    ACCOLC (ACCess Overload Class) is designed for throwing off customers
    in theevent of an overload. Thru neglect, this standard has been
    largly unused. (A Class 15 station is supposed to be police, fire or
    military). Usually, It's set to 0 plus the last digit of the phone
    number to provide random loading.

    ------

    This notes that the standard is "largely unused".

    I just find it hard to believe that people with phone numbers ending
    in 1 would be always thrown off quickly vs. those with phone numbers
    ending in 9. If everyone knew this, assuming the standard is used at
    all, they'd all be requesting high numbers!

    Mike
  7. Mike

    Mike Guest

    On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:09:54 -0700, "Bill Radio"
    <br@MountainWirelessNOSPAN.com> wrote:

    >But the original statement claims, "a sizable chunk of her drive to work..."
    >Since over 75% of that commute would be through the city limits of Akron,
    >Stow, Kent, Norton and maybe Barberton, all cities with excellent cellular
    >service from everyone, especially VZ (maybe not Northcoast), I am wondering
    >how big is a chunk? Could it be there is a dead spot just north of the
    >Smuckers plant? It can't be too big, you're on 585, and in good coverage,
    >within 5 miles. I think the chunk seems big, but it could only be a few
    >miles at the most.


    I think the phrase "sizeable chunk" was overdoing it. I guess when
    you lose signal at all, for more than a few seconds, it seems like a
    long time ;) My estimate of the "hole" she has is probably 2 to 3
    miles along 585. With the quality of VZW's signal around here, I was
    surprised she had even that much.

    She did report no service-related problems from near Doylestown, near
    the 585/21 interchange, all the way into Kent. That's a strong local
    1X digital area for VZW, and she should be able to get a signal even
    with the worst phone.

    Mike
  8. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > ACCOLC (ACCess Overload Class) is designed for throwing off customers
    > in theevent of an overload. Thru neglect, this standard has been
    > largly unused. (A Class 15 station is supposed to be police, fire or
    > military). Usually, It's set to 0 plus the last digit of the phone
    > number to provide random loading.
    >
    > ------
    >
    > This notes that the standard is "largely unused".
    >
    > I just find it hard to believe that people with phone numbers ending
    > in 1 would be always thrown off quickly vs. those with phone numbers
    > ending in 9. If everyone knew this, assuming the standard is used at
    > all, they'd all be requesting high numbers!
    >
    > Mike


    They mean that it is ignored by most people when they
    program the phone.
    And it isn't even used by most emergency companies.
    They just set it to the last digit of the number and don't
    think about it twice.

    All though, after some of the 911 stuff, some
    of the cities had their emergency crews set their
    phones to the higher levels.

    Most phones I see today will automatically set it to the
    last digit.
    Even one from back in 1995 will automatically do that.
    To even see the AOC, you have to go to the extended
    programming menu, which 99% of the people programming
    new phones will never do.
    And if you have already entered a new telephone number,
    you will find that the phone has set the AOC to the last digit,
    of the telephone number by it's self.

    It helps the cellular system keep an organized method of
    load control.
    They can't say that they are deliberately putting people
    at a disadvantage, because the telephone numbers are
    assigned pretty much randomly.
    It's just the luck of the draw.

    If everyone wanted a high number, then unloading would
    become erratic, and unmanageable.

    Some call it unfair.
    I call it life, you just have to live with it.
  9. AL

    AL Guest

    It may be valid, but is it accurate according to way the majority of users
    uses their phones. I think not.
    Plus using the external antenna shows a stronger, better signal and holds it
    for a longer time, and then the poor user (customer) can't understand why
    his phone is always dropping calls, or the representative is saying "well
    our maps show we have good coverage there."

    I think the "Best network" testing would be the one that accurate reflects
    common usage. Of course its the best network in Verizon's mind. Never been
    proved by independent testing that I know of...

    AL

    "Mark Allread" <mallread@flatsurface.com> wrote in message
    news:eek:pry9ri9jdbsorsk@news.chartermi.com...
    > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:46:32 GMT, AL <al145 @ delete.hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Only those who don't care about fringe reception "don't use them."
    > In any case, using them for testing is entirely valid, as an external
    > antenna will be much more consistent and repeatable in it's performance.
    > --
    > Mark
  10. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > Unless it's buried in the 90 to 200 page PDF files linked there, the
    > closest we get is this:


    Here is a page that cover it in a bit better detail
    (without having a 200 Page PDF.
    Hey... I like my PDFs :p )

    http://home.comcast.net/~conscriptt/texts/ucmm-2.txt


    Ow ya.... don't get the ACCOLC in the US messed up
    with the ACCOLC in the UK.

    In the UK, it is called "access overload control",
    not "access overload class" and it is implemented differently.

    In the UK you register a phone with a ACCOLC number.
    All other phones without ACCOLC are treated equally.
    And during an emergency, they restrict access to the
    phones that are registered with an ACCOLC number.
    If the USA used that method, they would of cut off
    all normal cell phone customers when 911 happened.
  11. AL

    AL Guest

    Some car have metal imbedded in their windows. For instance a Ford escort
    had terrible reception and transmission capabilities for both two-way and
    cellular. However a Toyota truck has no such problems.

    So yes tinting and the type of car does make a difference. Hell Verizon uses
    Ford Explorers and Taurus', which makes a difference in antenna height of
    two feet, which makes a difference in the signal strength.

    And yes, I don't think Verizon testing methods are valid, nor are signal bar
    reading a valid indicator of signal strength. They only measure relative
    signal, now using a dBm meter is more accurate.

    AL

    "Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:abuasvg6hv8o9dau8vr2ci0pi4mh0ijqug@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:46:32 GMT, "AL" <al145 @ delete.hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >There are other factors as well. Type of vehicle, truck versus car,

    tinting
    > >versus no tinting, number of doors and windows and so, that will affect

    the
    > >test. That's why Verizon's testing is so unfair with rooftop antennas,
    > >nobody uses them in real life, but that what they hype there "best"

    network
    > >on, and it's probably not accurate either.

    >
    > Hmm, it only took two messages to get this to a "Verizon Really Sucks
    > and Is Overstating their Testing" message! Woo hoo! ;)
    >
    > For the record, my own testing was done with a standard issue LG
    > VX4400 phone with no external antenna, inside a car. I'm assuming the
    > other woman was also using her Audiovox 8600 inside a car with no
    > external antenna.
    >
    > I have a small Saturn, no tinting. No idea what the other woman has.
    >
    > Mike
  12. Mike

    Mike Guest

    On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:51:41 GMT, "AL" <al145 @ delete.hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >I think the "Best network" testing would be the one that accurate reflects
    >common usage. Of course its the best network in Verizon's mind. Never been
    >proved by independent testing that I know of...


    I'm pretty sure VZW's "Test Guys" run around with phones for *other*
    carriers and compare them to VZW's results. It isn't as simple as
    "oh, we have an antenna on the roof, we're great, they all suck".

    Ah, but what would Usenet be without simplicity? ;)

    As far as independent testing goes...I've seen various local reports
    by media outlets, newspapers and the like...it seems to me VZW usually
    ends up at or near the top.

    Mike
  13. "N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<9Bnxb.119106$Ec1.5111843@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
    > "Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:msbbsvgt4hlr5no5oongbk1u4vr4267mkc@4ax.com...
    > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 05:03:21 GMT, "N9WOS"
    > > <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    > >

    > http://www.century-sun.net/image1/CDMA_AT.pdf


    Erm... "This document is the sole and exclusive property of WAVECOM.
    Not to be distributed or divulged without prior written agreement. Ce
    document est la propriété exclusive de WAVECOM. Il ne peut être
    communiqué ou divulgué à des tiers sans son autorisation préalable."

    It gives full specs on EVERY CDMA AT command, how the phone should
    respond, and how to, theoretically, write your own scripts to tell it
    to do stuff.

    It is for a Wavecom CDMA chip, but I'd imagine Qualcomm CDMA chips
    would be very similar. (Check out the similarities with this device
    that uses a Qualcomm chip:
    http://www.sierrawireless.com/ProductsOrdering/documents/2130184.pdf)

    You've posted a very powerful resource for anyone with a data cable.

    *Michael Notforyou*
  14. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest


    > > http://www.century-sun.net/image1/CDMA_AT.pdf

    >
    > Erm... "This document is the sole and exclusive property of WAVECOM.
    > Not to be distributed or divulged without prior written agreement. Ce
    > document est la propriété exclusive de WAVECOM. Il ne peut être
    > communiqué ou divulgué à des tiers sans son autorisation préalable."
    >
    > It gives full specs on EVERY CDMA AT command, how the phone should
    > respond, and how to, theoretically, write your own scripts to tell it
    > to do stuff.
    >
    > It is for a Wavecom CDMA chip, but I'd imagine Qualcomm CDMA chips
    > would be very similar. (Check out the similarities with this device
    > that uses a Qualcomm chip:
    > http://www.sierrawireless.com/ProductsOrdering/documents/2130184.pdf)
    >
    > You've posted a very powerful resource for anyone with a data cable.


    I don't think it is exactly considered Limited access information.
    I wouldn't even call it rare information.

    Heck, I found around 30 copies of those spec PDFs just using
    the google search engine.
    All of them from multiple companies, and a lot of them
    are usually located on the company's servers.
    They must consider it open information.
  15. Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<gouasv4rcs5vmeitoikf19c7885cq98ili@4ax.com>...
    > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:43:55 -0800, "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I didn't see any mention of verifying that they are both
    > >using the same PRL? I've lost the original post.

    >
    > I didn't say. For one, I don't know her PRL (mine is the latest,
    > 50113).
    >
    > But I doubt it'd make a difference in this case, unless perhaps my PRL
    > is picking up VZW PCS fill-in towers (I don't know if they even have
    > them in NE Ohio yet) and hers is not. The area has native VZW
    > coverage and I don't believe would be ABLE to roam on anything else,
    > in either old or new PRLs. They took out Sprint PCS Cleveland a long
    > time ago, and I'm pretty sure Alltel's Cleveland SID is not in the
    > PRL.
    >
    > Mike


    I don't know about that. We have native Verizon coverage here in the
    Triad and Alltel's system (SID 142) is A/D Flashing Roam (no
    additional charge). I'm almost always on Verizon native, partially
    because Verizon's old GTE MobilNet coverage is better than Alltel's
    old Centel Cellular coverage. (Verizon actually has the A Side
    cellular here.)

    You may be able to roam on Alltel. It looks like Verizon has TWO
    Cleveland systems anyway.

    *Michael Notforyou*
  16. Mike

    Mike Guest

    On 28 Nov 2003 09:46:10 -0800, sqfreak@eudoramail.com (Michael
    Notforyou) wrote:

    >I don't know about that. We have native Verizon coverage here in the
    >Triad and Alltel's system (SID 142) is A/D Flashing Roam (no
    >additional charge). I'm almost always on Verizon native, partially
    >because Verizon's old GTE MobilNet coverage is better than Alltel's
    >old Centel Cellular coverage. (Verizon actually has the A Side
    >cellular here.)


    Ah, therein lies the rub. Alltel's Triad system is indeed in the VZW
    PRL as an AC system. (I know, I used to go there fairly often, and
    used to work in VA.) But here in NE Ohio, Alltel's Cleveland system
    has never been in the PRL. I would assume that's because there is
    some coverage provided by the Alltel Triad SID that is not overlapping
    with the VZW SID down there...in specific, along U.S. 220 or NC 68
    north of Greensboro. I always got Alltel's Triad coverage there for
    about 3 or 4 miles, then Alltel's rural NC coverage kicked in.

    >You may be able to roam on Alltel. It looks like Verizon has TWO
    >Cleveland systems anyway.


    Huh? I don't know what that means...

    In the PRLs, the analog coverage is still listed as a separate SID,
    but that's about it. Last time I forced my 4400 to analog, it did
    indeed pick up SID 15 instead of 21. But it's only an analog/digital
    thing.

    BTW, I recognize you from that other forum. :D

    Mike
  17. Michael Notforyou <sqfreak@eudoramail.com> wrote:
    >> time ago, and I'm pretty sure Alltel's Cleveland SID is not in the
    >> PRL.
    >>
    >> Mike

    >
    > I don't know about that. We have native Verizon coverage here in the
    > Triad and Alltel's system (SID 142) is A/D Flashing Roam (no
    > additional charge). I'm almost always on Verizon native, partially
    > because Verizon's old GTE MobilNet coverage is better than Alltel's
    > old Centel Cellular coverage. (Verizon actually has the A Side
    > cellular here.)
    >
    > You may be able to roam on Alltel. It looks like Verizon has TWO
    > Cleveland systems anyway.


    Look, I'm telling you you can't. I'm 99.9999999% sure you can't. At least
    not officially, anyhow. I lived in Cleveland up until July of this year...

    Plus, as I mentioned - Alltel Cleveland and VZW Cleveland have an almost
    identical footprint. There is no reason for VZW to allow free roaming on
    Alltel there. It would cost VZW money and bring no benefit to the customer.


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  18. Joe Burke

    Joe Burke Guest

    > test. That's why Verizon's testing is so unfair with rooftop antennas,
    > nobody uses them in real life, but that what they hype there "best"

    network
    > on, and it's probably not accurate either.



    I use a rooftop 36" magmount antenna. Its the difference between making a
    good quality call and "NO SERVICE"

    Joe
  19. AL

    AL Guest

    So if your provider uses the same type antenna in testing, then it will show
    excellent coverage, but will not be true and accurate for the 80% that use
    their phones in a conventional way, no external antenna...
    However, it you want outstanding service, just carry around a magnet mount
    or a 3 watt bag phone.

    Like I said, VZW testing leaves a lot to be desired.
    AL

    "Joe Burke" <abc@123.com> wrote in message
    news:afRxb.119466$1N3.37526@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    > I use a rooftop 36" magmount antenna. Its the difference between making a
    > good quality call and "NO SERVICE"
    >
    > Joe
    >
    >
  20. David S

    David S Guest

    On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:46:32 GMT, "AL" <al145 @ delete.hotmail.com> chose
    to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >There are other factors as well. Type of vehicle, truck versus car, tinting
    >versus no tinting, number of doors and windows and so, that will affect the
    >test. That's why Verizon's testing is so unfair with rooftop antennas,
    >nobody uses them in real life, but that what they hype there "best" network
    >on, and it's probably not accurate either.


    Did it ever occur to you that they *know* what the difference is between
    their rooftop and the inside of the average car and that they've figured
    that into their testing? As a totally made-up example, if the worst signal
    your phone can use in your car is -94 and you get out of the car and it's
    -60 in the same spot, maybe what the test guys are looking for is places
    worse than -60. Or maybe they're looking for -50, or -40, just to add some
    leeway. Having the outside antenna just reduces the variables (i.e., the
    leeway).

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail on the ground. Too
    hypothetical." - George (Daddy) Bush, on extending uneployment benefits

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?