Verizon locks their phones?

Boomer wrote:
> I'm not trying to stir this argument but just where do Verizon phones NOT
> work? I'm a satisfied Verizon customer for the last 3 years & have yet to
> find a location without signal. I suppose I haven't traveled to those areas
> yet but from NJ to Florida they seem to have it covered.

I've been told there are large areas in Wisconsin where there's no coverage.

--
"You know the difference between cannibals and liberals? Cannibals only eat
their enemies." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson

In article <jambc3h1ireeaaphj3777h4ceptkjrnrr0@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been with
> >them for ten years?
>
> Guess you are 'technically" correct but some of us have been with
> PacBell which then became Airtouch which then became Verizon, etc. as
> the swallowing-up of regional carriers evolved. Maybe that is along the
> lines he was thinking.


Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless became
SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.


Today's VZW is made up mainly of the former GTE Wireless (where I was a
customer), Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodaphone, AirTouch Cellular, and a
host of small players. No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).

Sure, it's very likely that the thread curmudgeon was a customer of one
of one of the companies now part of VZW, but that company was not VZW.



--Mike

At 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been
with
> them for ten years?

Verizon didn't get created out of the aeither- I assume he's counting
their predecessors in his tenure. T-Mobile thanks me for being with
them since "October 2000" everytime I call CS, despite the fact the
first two or three years t eycalled themselves "Voicestream." My ten-
year tenure (1993 through 2003) with Cingular included six years or
so when they were "Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems."



--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:

> Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless
> became
> SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
> bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.


Actually, Cingular (a independant company owned by SBC and BellSouth)
bought AT&T Wireless, which at that point in time was an independent
company spun off from AT&T (the long distance company left over by
the Ma Bell breakup,) months before, and lost the right to use the
AT&T name, which required spending millions on new signage and untold
gallons of orange paint rebranding hundreds of AT&T stores as
Cingular stores.

Then SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company,) and started
renaming themselves AT&T, and of course getting the right to use the
AT&T name for wireless, but BellSouth wasn't interested in putting
another company's name on their half of Cingular, until...

....AT&T (SBC) merged with BellSouth and became one happy
dysfunctional company, and started spending untold millions
rebranding the Cingular stores as AT&T stores... ;-)


> No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).

I believe you're right. However, how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-
MHz? Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
(which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case this
whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)
(US West, now Qwest, sold most of their original licenses so here in
Denver, Verizon is the B carrier, and AT&T is the "A" or "A"lternate
carrier.

> Sure, it's very likely that the thread curmudgeon was a customer of
> one
> of one of the companies now part of VZW, but that company was not
> VZW.


Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must have
bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later allowed
them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of the
midwest.)

(You've got to love the government- they broke The Phone Company into
a dozen regional companies to protect consumers from "monopoly" and
then let all of them merge back into two or three to benefit
consumers by the "economies of scale!")

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-08-17, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

>> Guess you are 'technically" correct but some of us have been with
>> PacBell which then became Airtouch which then became Verizon, etc. as
>> the swallowing-up of regional carriers evolved. Maybe that is along the
>> lines he was thinking.
>
>
> Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless became
> SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
> bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.

SBC bought all of AT&T, actually.

> Today's VZW is made up mainly of the former GTE Wireless (where I was a
> customer), Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodaphone, AirTouch Cellular, and a
> host of small players. No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).

I thought part of PacBell Wireless spun off and became AirTouch. But I'm
not 100% sure.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:59:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>I thought part of PacBell Wireless spun off and became AirTouch. But I'm
>not 100% sure.

Yes, that was the case in the early-mid 90s. I had PacBell Wireless
first in San Diego and then it became Airtouch and I think after that it
got sucked up by SBC or vice-versa.

In article <slrnfcc7qf.ibp.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:


> >> Guess you are 'technically" correct but some of us have been with
> >> PacBell which then became Airtouch which then became Verizon, etc. as
> >> the swallowing-up of regional carriers evolved. Maybe that is along the
> >> lines he was thinking.
> >
> >
> > Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless became
> > SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
> > bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.
>
> SBC bought all of AT&T, actually.

I'm aware of that, but for purposes related to this thread; I mentioned
only the relevant cellular aspect.

>
> > Today's VZW is made up mainly of the former GTE Wireless (where I was a
> > customer), Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodaphone, AirTouch Cellular, and a
> > host of small players. No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> > part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).
>
> I thought part of PacBell Wireless spun off and became AirTouch. But I'm
> not 100% sure.


That certainly wasn't the case in NorCal.



--Mike

In article <LHoxi.127$Dg.98@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 17 Aug 2007 12:38:45 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>
> > Flawed as well as incorrect line of thinking. Pac Bell Wireless
> > became
> > SBC wireless and then rebranded wireless services to Cingular. SBC
> > bought ATTWS, but kept the AT&T name for wireless.
>
>
> Actually, Cingular (a independant company owned by SBC and BellSouth)
> bought AT&T Wireless,...


Are you sure about that? My recollection from that time frame is that
Cingular was merely a rebranded name for the cellular service which SBC
implemented shortly after the SBC/Bell South merger. They may have been
considered independent (much in the same way VZW is technically
independent from Verizon...but in reality it was the same company with
the same board members.


> which at that point in time was an independent
> company spun off from AT&T (the long distance company left over by
> the Ma Bell breakup,) months before, and lost the right to use the
> AT&T name, which required spending millions on new signage and untold
> gallons of orange paint rebranding hundreds of AT&T stores as
> Cingular stores.

> Then SBC bought AT&T (the long distance company,) and started
> renaming themselves AT&T, and of course getting the right to use the
> AT&T name for wireless, but BellSouth wasn't interested in putting
> another company's name on their half of Cingular, until...
>
> ...AT&T (SBC) merged with BellSouth and became one happy
> dysfunctional company, and started spending untold millions
> rebranding the Cingular stores as AT&T stores... ;-)


ATTWS existed long before SBC bought AT&T. I know, because from about
1994-1999 (or perhaps 1998) I and the company (Wired Magazine) I managed
IT and landline/wireless service for used the A-side carrier Cellular
One (SF Bay Area market). AT&T incorporated C1 and rebranded as ATTWS.
During that time, I also had accounts with Pac Bell Wireless, Nextel,
and GTE Wireless (Wired wanting me to stay on top of who had the best
coverage).

I'm aware of the logistical hassles incurred after the by all the sign
changes, but the company was known as Cingular before it became ATTWS.




> > No part of the former Pac Bell Wireless is a
> > part of today's VZW (to my knowledge).
>
> I believe you're right. However, how did PacTel get stuck at 1900-
> MHz?


Because, at least in the SF Bay Area, C1 (which ATTWS later acquired)
was already using the 800 MHz TDMA and GTE Wireless was using the 800
MHz CDMA freqs.


> Generally the incumbent landline Telco got the 800-Mhz "B"
> (which originally stood for "B"ell, as in Ma Bell!) license unless
> they were shortsighted enoughbto sell it to someone else in case this
> whole cellphone thing turned out to be a fad! ;-)
> (US West, now Qwest, sold most of their original licenses so here in
> Denver, Verizon is the B carrier, and AT&T is the "A" or "A"lternate
> carrier.
>
> > Sure, it's very likely that the thread curmudgeon was a customer of
> > one
> > of one of the companies now part of VZW, but that company was not
> > VZW.
>
>
> Or perhaps he assumes the original "B" carrier there, who must have
> bought the license from PacTel originally, was somehow affiliated
> with them, since PacTel effectively sold themselves out of the
> cellphone biz until the 1900MHz PCS-band auctions years later allowed
> them back in. (As it did Qwest in Colorado and a large part of the
> midwest.)

I don't know of anytime when Pac Bell offered any sort of cellular in
the Chicagoland (where our thread curmudgeon suggests he lives).
>
> (You've got to love the government- they broke The Phone Company into
> a dozen regional companies to protect consumers from "monopoly" and
> then let all of them merge back into two or three to benefit
> consumers by the "economies of scale!")


Isn't America great?! ; )



--Mike

In article <IHoxi.124$Dg.7@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 17 Aug 2007 10:08:39 -0700 Michael Wise wrote:
>
> > Since VZW has existed for only seven years, how could you have been
> with
> > them for ten years?
>
> Verizon didn't get created out of the aeither- I assume he's counting
> their predecessors in his tenure.


Perhaps, but Pac Bell cellular was not a predecessor to VZW.



--Mike

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-08-17, Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

>> (You've got to love the government- they broke The Phone Company into
>> a dozen regional companies to protect consumers from "monopoly" and
>> then let all of them merge back into two or three to benefit
>> consumers by the "economies of scale!")
>
> Isn't America great?! ; )

Feh. That's why I get my landline telephone and Internet access from the
cable company, and my wireless phone service from a company that doesn't
do US landlines. US telcos suck ass; they're monolithic monsters that
employ large numbers of obnoxious bureaucratic jerkoffs. :)

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield