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

Verizon to buy all of Qwest's Wireless Assets

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Andrew Shepherd, Jul 2, 2004.

  1. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    "Eric Rosenberry" <erics@R3MOVErosenberry.org> wrote in message
    news:9tWdnds-Tbq5NHbdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
    >I am happy to see this aquisition take place, however, I am very concerned
    > about what it means for Verizon's Extended Network agreements. Right now
    > in
    > southern Oregon along I-5 you can use US-Cellular's network, Ramcell's
    > network, or SprintPCS's network all for free! If they turn up service
    > using
    > the 1900mhz Qwest gear right along I-5 I worry that we will loose access
    > to
    > the awesome US-Cellular 800mhz coverage.
    >
    > The seamless data roaming would be really nice, however, I would much
    > rather
    > keep the 800mhz US-Cellular service that just works!



    Hello Eric-

    I raised this same concern recently, and Bill Radio pointed out that more
    native coverage also means same or better roaming in most cases. In other
    words, if you actually live in say Grants Pass, and Verizon removes US
    Cellular, why would you choose Verizon? Just for a narrow I5 coverage?

    His point was once you have native coverage down there, coverage for Verizon
    users should improve. If we lose the coverage area provided by US Cellular,
    it would be a big step backwards. They'd probably also lose any hope of
    getting the locals to sign up with them too. (i.e. The locals down there
    continue to have US Cellular as an option, and as such, would never choose
    Verizon).

    So anyway, hopefully Bill is right (as he most often is) and all will be
    well.

    -Dan
     



    › See More: Verizon to buy all of Qwest's Wireless Assets
  2. Dan Albrich

    Dan Albrich Guest

    "Eric Rosenberry" <erics@R3MOVErosenberry.org> wrote in message
    news:9tWdnds-Tbq5NHbdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
    >I am happy to see this aquisition take place, however, I am very concerned
    > about what it means for Verizon's Extended Network agreements. Right now
    > in
    > southern Oregon along I-5 you can use US-Cellular's network, Ramcell's
    > network, or SprintPCS's network all for free! If they turn up service
    > using
    > the 1900mhz Qwest gear right along I-5 I worry that we will loose access
    > to
    > the awesome US-Cellular 800mhz coverage.
    >
    > The seamless data roaming would be really nice, however, I would much
    > rather
    > keep the 800mhz US-Cellular service that just works!



    Hello Eric-

    I raised this same concern recently, and Bill Radio pointed out that more
    native coverage also means same or better roaming in most cases. In other
    words, if you actually live in say Grants Pass, and Verizon removes US
    Cellular, why would you choose Verizon? Just for a narrow I5 coverage?

    His point was once you have native coverage down there, coverage for Verizon
    users should improve. If we lose the coverage area provided by US Cellular,
    it would be a big step backwards. They'd probably also lose any hope of
    getting the locals to sign up with them too. (i.e. The locals down there
    continue to have US Cellular as an option, and as such, would never choose
    Verizon).

    So anyway, hopefully Bill is right (as he most often is) and all will be
    well.

    -Dan
     
  3. On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:54:07 -0700, "Dan Albrich"
    <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >His point was once you have native coverage down there, coverage for Verizon
    >users should improve. If we lose the coverage area provided by US Cellular,
    >it would be a big step backwards. They'd probably also lose any hope of

    <snip>

    I don't see VZW pulling Extended Network roaming in areas whre they
    have only 1900 MHz coverage, and *especially* where the roaming
    partner is USCC. In most areas where VZW is 1900, at least one 850
    carrier, if not both, is Extended Network. There are some exceptions
    in Louisiana (Houma/Cajun country, and until recently Lake Charles),
    Florida (the Keys -- but there's really no need for 850 fallback in
    the Keys), and possibly some spots in Texas, but that's because the
    carriers in those regions are carriers that are generally hostile
    toward VZW and/or have a reputation for charging other carriers high
    rates -- Cingular, Dobson, Commnet Wireless, etc.

    -SC
    --
    Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
    ....
    "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
    be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune
     
  4. On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:54:07 -0700, "Dan Albrich"
    <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >His point was once you have native coverage down there, coverage for Verizon
    >users should improve. If we lose the coverage area provided by US Cellular,
    >it would be a big step backwards. They'd probably also lose any hope of

    <snip>

    I don't see VZW pulling Extended Network roaming in areas whre they
    have only 1900 MHz coverage, and *especially* where the roaming
    partner is USCC. In most areas where VZW is 1900, at least one 850
    carrier, if not both, is Extended Network. There are some exceptions
    in Louisiana (Houma/Cajun country, and until recently Lake Charles),
    Florida (the Keys -- but there's really no need for 850 fallback in
    the Keys), and possibly some spots in Texas, but that's because the
    carriers in those regions are carriers that are generally hostile
    toward VZW and/or have a reputation for charging other carriers high
    rates -- Cingular, Dobson, Commnet Wireless, etc.

    -SC
    --
    Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
    ....
    "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
    be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune
     
  5. On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:54:07 -0700, "Dan Albrich"
    <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >His point was once you have native coverage down there, coverage for Verizon
    >users should improve. If we lose the coverage area provided by US Cellular,
    >it would be a big step backwards. They'd probably also lose any hope of

    <snip>

    I don't see VZW pulling Extended Network roaming in areas whre they
    have only 1900 MHz coverage, and *especially* where the roaming
    partner is USCC. In most areas where VZW is 1900, at least one 850
    carrier, if not both, is Extended Network. There are some exceptions
    in Louisiana (Houma/Cajun country, and until recently Lake Charles),
    Florida (the Keys -- but there's really no need for 850 fallback in
    the Keys), and possibly some spots in Texas, but that's because the
    carriers in those regions are carriers that are generally hostile
    toward VZW and/or have a reputation for charging other carriers high
    rates -- Cingular, Dobson, Commnet Wireless, etc.

    -SC
    --
    Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
    ....
    "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
    be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune
     
  6. I can see why cingular would be low on the list. Roaming on
    cingular would have to be analog. Whereas USCellular would be cdma with
    analog fall back.

    Stanley Cline wrote:

    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:54:07 -0700, "Dan Albrich"
    > <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>His point was once you have native coverage down there, coverage for Verizon
    >>users should improve. If we lose the coverage area provided by US Cellular,
    >>it would be a big step backwards. They'd probably also lose any hope of

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I don't see VZW pulling Extended Network roaming in areas whre they
    > have only 1900 MHz coverage, and *especially* where the roaming
    > partner is USCC. In most areas where VZW is 1900, at least one 850
    > carrier, if not both, is Extended Network. There are some exceptions
    > in Louisiana (Houma/Cajun country, and until recently Lake Charles),
    > Florida (the Keys -- but there's really no need for 850 fallback in
    > the Keys), and possibly some spots in Texas, but that's because the
    > carriers in those regions are carriers that are generally hostile
    > toward VZW and/or have a reputation for charging other carriers high
    > rates -- Cingular, Dobson, Commnet Wireless, etc.
    >
    > -SC
     
  7. I can see why cingular would be low on the list. Roaming on
    cingular would have to be analog. Whereas USCellular would be cdma with
    analog fall back.

    Stanley Cline wrote:

    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:54:07 -0700, "Dan Albrich"
    > <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>His point was once you have native coverage down there, coverage for Verizon
    >>users should improve. If we lose the coverage area provided by US Cellular,
    >>it would be a big step backwards. They'd probably also lose any hope of

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I don't see VZW pulling Extended Network roaming in areas whre they
    > have only 1900 MHz coverage, and *especially* where the roaming
    > partner is USCC. In most areas where VZW is 1900, at least one 850
    > carrier, if not both, is Extended Network. There are some exceptions
    > in Louisiana (Houma/Cajun country, and until recently Lake Charles),
    > Florida (the Keys -- but there's really no need for 850 fallback in
    > the Keys), and possibly some spots in Texas, but that's because the
    > carriers in those regions are carriers that are generally hostile
    > toward VZW and/or have a reputation for charging other carriers high
    > rates -- Cingular, Dobson, Commnet Wireless, etc.
    >
    > -SC
     
  8. I can see why cingular would be low on the list. Roaming on
    cingular would have to be analog. Whereas USCellular would be cdma with
    analog fall back.

    Stanley Cline wrote:

    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:54:07 -0700, "Dan Albrich"
    > <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>His point was once you have native coverage down there, coverage for Verizon
    >>users should improve. If we lose the coverage area provided by US Cellular,
    >>it would be a big step backwards. They'd probably also lose any hope of

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I don't see VZW pulling Extended Network roaming in areas whre they
    > have only 1900 MHz coverage, and *especially* where the roaming
    > partner is USCC. In most areas where VZW is 1900, at least one 850
    > carrier, if not both, is Extended Network. There are some exceptions
    > in Louisiana (Houma/Cajun country, and until recently Lake Charles),
    > Florida (the Keys -- but there's really no need for 850 fallback in
    > the Keys), and possibly some spots in Texas, but that's because the
    > carriers in those regions are carriers that are generally hostile
    > toward VZW and/or have a reputation for charging other carriers high
    > rates -- Cingular, Dobson, Commnet Wireless, etc.
    >
    > -SC
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?