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

Switching to Sprint? Opinions?

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Michael L., Jun 7, 2004.

  1. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     



    › See More: Switching to Sprint? Opinions?
  2. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  3. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  4. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  5. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  6. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  7. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  8. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  9. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  10. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  11. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  12. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  13. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  14. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  15. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  16. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  17. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > I have Sprint PCS. I wind up on roaming at least 25% of the calls I
    > make on a regular basis. I find it irritating that I have to pay a
    > montly service fee to get the "true nationwide network with no
    > roaming" that the ads promised.


    You don't. You're misreading the claim. That's actually a dig at Verizon,
    where it's actually possible to be on their network *and* roaming at the
    same time. With Sprint, if you're on the SPCS network, you're not roaming.
    Period.

    This is not to say the misread isn't understandable, or to deny your claims
    about the coverage issues you have. It's simply to point out the actual
    context of that claim.
     
  18. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > Not necessarily. I have found a true nationwide plan, that will give
    > me 50 less anytime minutes a month, and more N&W minues, but with
    > rollover, so for those months where I use less than the anytime (most
    > months), they'll bank and be used for the months where I spike.
    >

    That's a *very* intriguing insight you've provided. More N&W minutes? Our
    plans provide *unlimited* N&W minutes now. Truly so. Based on a few posts
    I've seen in the Cingular group, that appears to be not truly unlimited.

    And for $60/month, your phones could be covered under Fair & Flexible
    America For $65, Unlimited N&W minutes could start at 7.

    For those four months, assuming max usage at 600 minutes, you'd pay an
    additional $30 each month it happens. And that's not a "use it or lose it"
    feature. Not nearly the catastrophic cost involved in, for example, running
    out of rollover minutes and going into $0.40/min usage rates.

    So, you've got some coverage issues, and that's certainly a valid reason to
    be on your way. No question about that. But, when it comes to plan options
    and monthly costs, it sounds like you've compared Sprint apples to Cingular
    oranges.
     
  19. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > Not necessarily. I have found a true nationwide plan, that will give
    > me 50 less anytime minutes a month, and more N&W minues, but with
    > rollover, so for those months where I use less than the anytime (most
    > months), they'll bank and be used for the months where I spike.
    >

    That's a *very* intriguing insight you've provided. More N&W minutes? Our
    plans provide *unlimited* N&W minutes now. Truly so. Based on a few posts
    I've seen in the Cingular group, that appears to be not truly unlimited.

    And for $60/month, your phones could be covered under Fair & Flexible
    America For $65, Unlimited N&W minutes could start at 7.

    For those four months, assuming max usage at 600 minutes, you'd pay an
    additional $30 each month it happens. And that's not a "use it or lose it"
    feature. Not nearly the catastrophic cost involved in, for example, running
    out of rollover minutes and going into $0.40/min usage rates.

    So, you've got some coverage issues, and that's certainly a valid reason to
    be on your way. No question about that. But, when it comes to plan options
    and monthly costs, it sounds like you've compared Sprint apples to Cingular
    oranges.
     
  20. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    deb.milner@att.net wrote:
    >
    > Not necessarily. I have found a true nationwide plan, that will give
    > me 50 less anytime minutes a month, and more N&W minues, but with
    > rollover, so for those months where I use less than the anytime (most
    > months), they'll bank and be used for the months where I spike.
    >

    That's a *very* intriguing insight you've provided. More N&W minutes? Our
    plans provide *unlimited* N&W minutes now. Truly so. Based on a few posts
    I've seen in the Cingular group, that appears to be not truly unlimited.

    And for $60/month, your phones could be covered under Fair & Flexible
    America For $65, Unlimited N&W minutes could start at 7.

    For those four months, assuming max usage at 600 minutes, you'd pay an
    additional $30 each month it happens. And that's not a "use it or lose it"
    feature. Not nearly the catastrophic cost involved in, for example, running
    out of rollover minutes and going into $0.40/min usage rates.

    So, you've got some coverage issues, and that's certainly a valid reason to
    be on your way. No question about that. But, when it comes to plan options
    and monthly costs, it sounds like you've compared Sprint apples to Cingular
    oranges.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?