Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I started service with Verizon back in Sept 2001 with a new Kyocera
2035a. I upgraded to a Motorola v60s 1.5 years ago, which has been
giving me problems lately up until I lost it around July 4 this year.
I reverted back to my 2035a which had mechanical problems, but a week
later I received another 2035a via Ebay and activated the phone. Cool.
About a week ago, I lost that phone (don't ask). So I got yet another
2035a off Ebay and tried to activate it just now. Verizon refuses,
citing they decided to comply with the 1999 Wireless Telecommunications
Act (or some such) this past Sunday (something about not activating
non-E911 capable phones). I was able to activate my original 2035a
just a few days ago, and they even say if I tried to activate that
phone today it still wouldn't work. Does Verizon still have the best
service of all carriers, because now I'm looking to switch.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"regis" <rrregis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123595744.604452.134760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I started service with Verizon back in Sept 2001 with a new Kyocera
> 2035a. I upgraded to a Motorola v60s 1.5 years ago, which has been
> giving me problems lately up until I lost it around July 4 this year.
> I reverted back to my 2035a which had mechanical problems, but a week
> later I received another 2035a via Ebay and activated the phone. Cool.
> About a week ago, I lost that phone (don't ask). So I got yet another
> 2035a off Ebay and tried to activate it just now. Verizon refuses,
> citing they decided to comply with the 1999 Wireless Telecommunications
> Act (or some such) this past Sunday (something about not activating
> non-E911 capable phones). I was able to activate my original 2035a
> just a few days ago, and they even say if I tried to activate that
> phone today it still wouldn't work.

True, you may be able to activate on the web if you log into your account.
Some carriers are using cell tower based location and some like Verizon are
handset based. The handset based systems could be more accurate and have
other advantages but as you have found it does require a new handset.

>Does Verizon still have the best
> service of all carriers, because now I'm looking to switch.
>
Where do you plan to use your phone ? Different carriers rank #1 in
different locations. Your CDMA phone will not work on Cingular, T-mobile,
and Nextel. Sprint only activates phones they sold.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

regis wrote:

> I started service with Verizon back in Sept 2001 with a new Kyocera
> 2035a. I upgraded to a Motorola v60s 1.5 years ago, which has been
> giving me problems lately up until I lost it around July 4 this year.
> I reverted back to my 2035a which had mechanical problems, but a week
> later I received another 2035a via Ebay and activated the phone. Cool.
> About a week ago, I lost that phone (don't ask). So I got yet another
> 2035a off Ebay and tried to activate it just now. Verizon refuses,
> citing they decided to comply with the 1999 Wireless Telecommunications
> Act (or some such) this past Sunday (something about not activating
> non-E911 capable phones). I was able to activate my original 2035a
> just a few days ago, and they even say if I tried to activate that
> phone today it still wouldn't work. Does Verizon still have the best
> service of all carriers, because now I'm looking to switch.

I heard a rumor that CDMA carriers wanted to have a handset based e911
solution in part because they would be able to force their customers to
obtain new handsets, potentially "forcing" hundreds of thousands of users
to renew a contract for a 911 handset who may otherwise not have done so.
It would not have made sense for the GSM carriers to use a handset based
solution for they would not be allowed to have foreigners roam on their
systems, plus with the versatility of the SIM card, it would be too hard to
regulate.

Only you can answer the question of whether Verizon has the best service.
Cingular has a larger data coverage area and also allows much more data
roaming. It all depends on where *you* use your phone, and how it works
for you. I live in Florida, and in my part, Cingular is hands-down better
than Verizon for coverage. In some parts of Minnesota, Cingular is
hands-down better because Verizon is not available. In North Dakota,
Verizon is hands-down better because Cingular is not available.

I can't speak for T-Mobile, Sprint PCS, or Nextel, or any regional carrier
you have have, but I can say a few things about Cingular.

- Cingular will allow you start service *without contract* if you provide
your own compatible equipment (a handset capable of at minimum GSM in the
850 and 1900 mHz frequencies)
- Cingular has the largest mobile-to-mobile community (if nobody you know
uses Cingular, it doesn't matter)
- Cingular is a GSM carrier, which allows you the versatility of the SIM
card, ease of handset swaps, and the largest equipment selection available

If you have a regional GSM carrier, or T-Mobile available, you'd also get
the advantages of the SIM.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:38:14 -0400, Tropical Haven <email@example.net>
wrote:
>I heard a rumor that CDMA carriers wanted to have a handset based e911
>solution in part because they would be able to force their customers to
>obtain new handsets, potentially "forcing" hundreds of thousands of users
>to renew a contract for a 911 handset who may otherwise not have done so.
>It would not have made sense for the GSM carriers to use a handset based
>solution for they would not be allowed to have foreigners roam on their
>systems, plus with the versatility of the SIM card, it would be too hard to
>regulate.

That is not correct. Cingular's (GSM) position determination system
requires capability built in to the handset.

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Stanley Reynolds" <nospam_stanley_reynolds@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:xX3Ke.5657$7p.5245@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

> Sprint only activates phones they sold.
>

So doesn't Alltel....

--
Larry

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

An ever higher percentage of their phones complying with the act is a
betterment of their service, especially if their percentage is higher
than the other carriers.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"regis" <rrregis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123595744.604452.134760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I started service with Verizon back in Sept 2001 with a new Kyocera
> 2035a. I upgraded to a Motorola v60s 1.5 years ago, which has been
> giving me problems lately up until I lost it around July 4 this
year.
> I reverted back to my 2035a which had mechanical problems, but a
week
> later I received another 2035a via Ebay and activated the phone.
Cool.
> About a week ago, I lost that phone (don't ask). So I got yet
another
> 2035a off Ebay and tried to activate it just now. Verizon refuses,
> citing they decided to comply with the 1999 Wireless
Telecommunications
> Act (or some such) this past Sunday (something about not activating
> non-E911 capable phones). I was able to activate my original 2035a
> just a few days ago, and they even say if I tried to activate that
> phone today it still wouldn't work. Does Verizon still have the
best
> service of all carriers, because now I'm looking to switch.
>

Just reactivated a Startac 7868W (which has no GPS capability) using
the 'Manage my Account' feature on the Web after a Verizon Store
manager declined to do it.

HTH

Richard

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Verizon has flatly lied to you. It really "pissed" off Verizon when I
contacted the FCC about this last year, although my question to the FCC was
about phones for the heard of hearing. But they came back with a flat
statement that they have no rules concerning used phones. Verizon has lied
to you, now is that a surprise? The rule is that a carrier can not SELL a
non-aGps phone. There is no restriction on a customer activating or
buying/selling a non aGps phone. See a pattern? dr.

Date: 3/26/04 10:26:50 AM Central Standard Time
From: Jenifer.Simpson@fcc.gov

To:

Sent from the Internet (Details)

Dear Mr. xxxxx

Your inquiry is about Assisted Global Positioning System (AGPS) compatible
phones...


<snip>

The FCC does not regulate activities such as buying and selling of used cell
phones. You may want to check with the Cellular Telecommunications trade
association about that. See http://www.ctia.org


Regards,

J. Simpson

Consumer Inquiries & Complaints Division FCC


--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious or thru this
notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz

"regis" <rrregis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123595744.604452.134760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I started service with Verizon back in Sept 2001 with a new Kyocera
> 2035a. I upgraded to a Motorola v60s 1.5 years ago, which has been
> giving me problems lately up until I lost it around July 4 this year.
> I reverted back to my 2035a which had mechanical problems, but a week
> later I received another 2035a via Ebay and activated the phone. Cool.
> About a week ago, I lost that phone (don't ask). So I got yet another
> 2035a off Ebay and tried to activate it just now. Verizon refuses,
> citing they decided to comply with the 1999 Wireless Telecommunications
> Act (or some such) this past Sunday (something about not activating
> non-E911 capable phones). I was able to activate my original 2035a
> just a few days ago, and they even say if I tried to activate that
> phone today it still wouldn't work. Does Verizon still have the best
> service of all carriers, because now I'm looking to switch.
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
news:6MAKe.83$UA1.78@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> Verizon has flatly lied to you. It really "pissed" off Verizon when I
> contacted the FCC about this last year, although my question to the FCC
was
> about phones for the heard of hearing. But they came back with a flat
> statement that they have no rules concerning used phones. Verizon has
lied
> to you, now is that a surprise? The rule is that a carrier can not SELL a
> non-aGps phone. There is no restriction on a customer activating or
> buying/selling a non aGps phone. See a pattern? dr.
>

But there is an FCC requirement concerning the percentage of non-GPS phones
that carriers are allowed to have on their networks, based on the handset
E911 solution they are employing. If Verizon is over this number, they
could use the FCC order (E911) to disallow such an activation. Verizon did
not lie- they do have to comply with the Telecommunications Act, as do all
other carriers. The percentage of non-GPS phones allowed decreases steadily
over the next 5(?) years. Your disdain for being dumped by Verizon is
clouding your ability to remember the entire Act. This has nothing to do
with activating used phones- it has to do with activating phones that do not
allow E911 compliance.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Scott: (I still activate verizon lines, thank you). I believe you are
correct about the %, but it still applies to new phones that the carrier
sells. There is no restriction, by the FCC, that denies the user the
ability to put a used verizon phone on the network (a phone that at one time
was approved by V to be on their network of course).

You can translate the % as you like, but it is for carrier provided new
phones. And yes, as a metric, the company, and FCC reporting will ask the %
of phones (that were new when activated on a verizon line) that are 911
compliant. Sometimes a broad V policy has good intentions, but is
miss-used. Perhaps it is difficult to distinguish between new phones
provided at one time by V, that would be fair. But it isn't an FCC
requirement. Perhaps a V requirement in their effort to comply.

(To the best of my knowledge, unless you have a pointer to contradictory
language from the FCC) There is no FCC requirement that disallows any
carrier from putting an older used phone back on the network.
(Intentionally, no hostile tone twd v included, thanks for the reminder) dr
--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious or thru this
notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:s4adnZ2dnZ2HKYDRnZ2dnXtGZ9-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
>
> "dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
> news:6MAKe.83$UA1.78@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> Verizon has flatly lied to you. It really "pissed" off Verizon when I
>> contacted the FCC about this last year, although my question to the FCC
> was
>> about phones for the heard of hearing. But they came back with a flat
>> statement that they have no rules concerning used phones. Verizon has
> lied
>> to you, now is that a surprise? The rule is that a carrier can not SELL
>> a
>> non-aGps phone. There is no restriction on a customer activating or
>> buying/selling a non aGps phone. See a pattern? dr.
>>
>
> But there is an FCC requirement concerning the percentage of non-GPS
> phones
> that carriers are allowed to have on their networks, based on the handset
> E911 solution they are employing. If Verizon is over this number, they
> could use the FCC order (E911) to disallow such an activation. Verizon
> did
> not lie- they do have to comply with the Telecommunications Act, as do all
> other carriers. The percentage of non-GPS phones allowed decreases
> steadily
> over the next 5(?) years. Your disdain for being dumped by Verizon is
> clouding your ability to remember the entire Act. This has nothing to do
> with activating used phones- it has to do with activating phones that do
> not
> allow E911 compliance.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious> wrote in message
news:FPHKe.1242$FV1.775@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Scott: (I still activate verizon lines, thank you). I believe you are
> correct about the %, but it still applies to new phones that the carrier
> sells. There is no restriction, by the FCC, that denies the user the
> ability to put a used verizon phone on the network (a phone that at one
time
> was approved by V to be on their network of course).

No, it does not only apply to new phones that the carrier sells- at this
time, every new phone sold or new activation has to be E911 compliant in
order to prepare for Phase II implmentation but by the end of this year, the
FCC has mandated that E-911 penetration be at least 95% of the subscriber
base. At last report (June), Verizon was only at 88% penetration and the
rate of increase shows only a 1% gain for each of the last three months.
The policy discussed here to not activate a non-GPS would logically fall in
line with the mandate that 95% of the phones on the network be E-911 capable
by the end of the year.

>
> You can translate the % as you like, but it is for carrier provided new
> phones. And yes, as a metric, the company, and FCC reporting will ask the
%
> of phones (that were new when activated on a verizon line) that are 911
> compliant. Sometimes a broad V policy has good intentions, but is
> miss-used. Perhaps it is difficult to distinguish between new phones
> provided at one time by V, that would be fair. But it isn't an FCC
> requirement. Perhaps a V requirement in their effort to comply.

But it is a requirement to reach a certain %, moving towards total
penetration. Both of these are impossible to acheive if older units are
brought back on to the network. And while the FCC does not have specific
language about the activation of used phones, it's Order to move toward 100%
E-911 compliance would effectively prohibit the activation of older units
by any carrier not in compliance, which is a category that VZW would appear
to be in.. To argue that VZW's efforts to comply are a misused policy with
good intentions seems rather silly

>
> (To the best of my knowledge, unless you have a pointer to contradictory
> language from the FCC) There is no FCC requirement that disallows any
> carrier from putting an older used phone back on the network.
> (Intentionally, no hostile tone twd v included, thanks for the reminder)
dr
> --

See above- no specific language, but language concerning penetration that
effectively prohibits it.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Scott wrote:
> "dr.news" <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-the-obvious>
> wrote in message
> news:FPHKe.1242$FV1.775@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> Scott: (I still activate verizon lines, thank you). I
>> believe you are correct about the %, but it still
>> applies to new phones that the carrier sells. There is
>> no restriction, by the FCC, that denies the user the
>> ability to put a used verizon phone on the network (a
>> phone that at one time was approved by V to be on their
>> network of course).
>
> No, it does not only apply to new phones that the carrier
> sells- at this time, every new phone sold or new
> activation has to be E911 compliant in order to prepare
> for Phase II implmentation but by the end of this year,
> the FCC has mandated that E-911 penetration be at least
> 95% of the subscriber base. At last report (June),
> Verizon was only at 88% penetration and the rate of
> increase shows only a 1% gain for each of the last three
> months. The policy discussed here to not activate a
> non-GPS would logically fall in line with the mandate
> that 95% of the phones on the network be E-911 capable by
> the end of the year.
>
>>
>> You can translate the % as you like, but it is for
>> carrier provided new phones. And yes, as a metric, the
>> company, and FCC reporting will ask the % of phones
>> (that were new when activated on a verizon line) that
>> are 911 compliant. Sometimes a broad V policy has good
>> intentions, but is miss-used. Perhaps it is difficult
>> to distinguish between new phones provided at one time
>> by V, that would be fair. But it isn't an FCC
>> requirement. Perhaps a V requirement in their effort to
>> comply.
>
> But it is a requirement to reach a certain %, moving
> towards total penetration. Both of these are impossible
> to acheive if older units are brought back on to the
> network. And while the FCC does not have specific
> language about the activation of used phones, it's Order
> to move toward 100% E-911 compliance would effectively
> prohibit the activation of older units by any carrier not
> in compliance, which is a category that VZW would appear
> to be in.. To argue that VZW's efforts to comply are a
> misused policy with good intentions seems rather silly
>
>>
>> (To the best of my knowledge, unless you have a pointer
>> to contradictory language from the FCC) There is no FCC
>> requirement that disallows any carrier from putting an
>> older used phone back on the network. (Intentionally, no
>> hostile tone twd v included, thanks for the reminder) dr
>> --
>
> See above- no specific language, but language concerning
> penetration that effectively prohibits it.

Dr. News has a bit of an agenda when it comes to VZW and
puts a pretty good twist on things. Good example here. First
off they just might say "sorry, we won't activate that particular
phone any more". Same end result right? So they say it has
something to do with e911. Same result. Let's *assume* they
flat out lied about the reason. So? Same result. Not actionable
(you can ask that Attorney General you have on board for your
class action suit).

In the original reply, Dr. News, claims that he "pissed" off VZW
with some sort of inquiry to the FCC... about activating some
phone for hearing impaired? Implying that VZW is doing
something underhanded behind the FCC's back? or in violation
of FCC regulations? Care to expound on that one Dr. News?
maybe with some substantive details? Are you implying that
this refusal to activate a particular phone is related in any way?
If you gave Larry some wordsmithing lessons he could do much
better.

-Quick

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

RICHARD GORDON wrote:

>
> Just reactivated a Startac 7868W (which has no GPS capability) using
> the 'Manage my Account' feature on the Web after a Verizon Store
> manager declined to do it.
>

Just reactivated my old Mot 7868 Aug 5th, using the Online ESN changer,
as a test too. I tried after VZW CS told me it was impossible.
Apparently this CS agent even tried her "backdoor" method and couldn't.

I just recieved a notice, on good authourity, that the VZW online ESN
changer stopped working after Aug 7th. Anyone get it to work after Aug
7th?

Suspected it would just take a little time before the online changer
was updated as well

Whatever the validity of the FCC language and implementation is, VZW is
actively getting a lot of old phones off their network. Or they will
soon be changing them out.
Don't know exactly when 1x technology came out, but it seems about the
same time GPS enabled phones did. Anyone hear of a 1x phone that was
not GPS capable?

One obvious benefit to VZW is now customers won't be able to activate
any of those non 1x phones on the network. Since non 1x phones use
twice the bandwidth to call, due to older voice encoding technology,
the network capacity is going to increase quite a bit, as the non 1x
phones get premanently retired.
-
David
-
David

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 11 Aug 2005 14:45:05 -0700, "David L" <davlindi@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Don't know exactly when 1x technology came out, but it seems about the
>same time GPS enabled phones did. Anyone hear of a 1x phone that