Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56
  1. #41  
    Verizon's flexibility on data for individual phones on a family plan seems to be a selling point for Verizon, once you go over 2 phones on the plan. At least that's what seemed to make the difference in my case.

    Customer service. VZW has been good. Years ago, my wife had AT&T. CS was terrible. But mostly billing issues. It got so bad, when it was time to add a second phone for my oldest daughter, we switched to Cingular. CS was good. After about a year, AT&T bought Cingular...and guess what...billing issues, calls to CS every month...EVERY month...did you hear me say EVERY MONTH!? It was ridiculous. EVERY month the CS rep would say, "Oh, I see the problem, I'll take care of this, you will not see this again." Next month, when the same incorrect charge showed up again, the new CS Rep I got to meet (by the way, I met all 15 of them , we exchange Christmas cards now, one of them is the Godparent of my child, we keep their dogs when they go on vacation...you get close when you spend a lot of time on the phone...) would say, "Ah, I see the problem. Don't worry, you won't see this again." Next month...same thing. This actually went on for almost a year. It took at least 9 months for the 'fix' to stick. When the contract was up, it was time to move to Verizon! And that matched up well with my office supplied phone which is also on VZW.
    Sent from my slowly diminishing intellect

    I'm just a soul who's intentions are good...oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!

  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockbeast View Post
    I tried going the Sprint route, but it wasn't hardly any cheaper for my family. The main reason, Sprint won't let you have data on one phone and not on another within a family plan. At least, that was what the rep told me. And, you don't get the Navigation unless you have the full data plan. There is no mix and match. With Verizon, the data cost is per phone. Now, I will say that if all the phones were smartphones with full data, Sprint was better by a decent margin. But we don't need that. So, we did not move to Sprint. And that was about a week before they announced the new $10 data fee for smartphones.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinfusor View Post
    I don't want navigation on my cell phone; I have a PND that is much better than anything on the Pre. I don't need a text messaging plan, because I rarely send them (everyone I frequently send messages to has a smartphone). For me, Verizon is $69.99. Sprint is $79.99.

    Also, Verizon's coverage is better.
    I just compared AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint prices in Auburn, AL as it pertains to my family needs. Here are the details.
    3 line - 2 smart phones w/data & 1 feature phone. unl text, 1400 ish minutes. Friends/fam., insurance.

    Sprint - 1500m, no F/F. NO 3G in my area!!!! $155
    AT&T - 189/mo
    Verizon - 205/mo
    I get 20% on Vzw so would save $35 = 180/mo

    So, next time you tell me I'm paying too much for VZW, I'll call BS!
    Yeah, sprint is a little cheaper, but there's NO 3G in Most of my state!!!
    Verizon has the best service levels and coverages in most of the south east, so why would I switch?
    IIIXE>Clie:N710C>N760C>NX60>Treo[600>650>700]>Centro>Pre+>Pre2&Touchpad 32GB
    webOS Themes: star-trek-universe star-trek-future Future Trek for Tpad

    My CV: http://visualcv.com/egadgetguy
  3. #43  
    Sprint doesn't have F/F because they have any mobile, any time. No need to choose who you want to be in your F/F. If you're calling a cell phone--regardless the carrier--it's free.

    Their map does show 3G coverage in Auburn, but only downtown and around I-85.
    Last edited by Syndil; 04/29/2011 at 01:48 PM.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by Syndil View Post
    Sprint doesn't have F/F because they have any mobile, any time. No need to choose who you want to be in your F/F. If you're calling a cell phone--regardless the carrier--it's free.
    Well that's a POV. F/F + Verizon mobile-to-mobile vs. any mobile-to-mobile. If you call specific landlines frequently then that F/F could be more useful than any Mobile-to-Mobile.

    We could compare it with US Cellular where they give free in-coming calls plus US Cellular mobile-to-mobile and no charge earlier night/weekend times.

    Which is better depends on your usage patterns.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by j_grouchy View Post
    It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are willingly spending more for less on Verizon. I mean, sure...Sprint needs some work and they're far from perfect...but really? Why does anyone pay so much for a Verizon plan? And please...don't say "iPhone". That doesn't explain the years and years of continued growth.
    I agree. And I'm annoyed. Clearly price means nothing to the hundred plus million people on AT&T and Verizon, and that means the prices rise for everyone. I really don't get it. You get LESS and pay MORE. Sure, in some areas Sprint might not be good service, or you need a world phone, but I know a LOT of people who don't need a world phone and are in amazing Sprint service areas, yet they pay a ton more for AT&T or Verizon and don't even have unlimited texting or data!
  6. #46  
    Someone want to cover the "Unlimited data (on our network)" thing? Does that mean that I can't have unlimited data when operating in their partner areas?
  7. #47  
    Nevermind, I found the answer: "Voice/Data Usage Limitation: Sprint reserves the right, without notice, to limit throughput speeds, and to deny, terminate, modify, disconnect or suspend service if off-network usage in a month exceeds: (1) voice: 800 min. or a majority of minutes; or (2) data: 300 megabytes or a majority of kilobytes. Prohibited network use rules apply. See in-store materials or sprint.com/termsandconditions for specific prohibited uses."

    Guess unlimited is only unlimited, as long as you don't leave their primary network? Mr. Hesse might want to include that disclaimer in his commercial.

    I just did a price comparison to what we have with Verizon right now, even if we get that extra 10% off for being a credit union member it's still the same price as what we're paying now for unlimited text, unlimited data (without that partner network stipulation), and F/F. I'll admit though that we did get one of Verizon's unpublished discounts to get the rate we have.
  8. #48  
    Data is unlimited on Sprint as long as you are not roaming. Roaming is free on Sprint, but it isn't free to Sprint, so they have to enforce a limit when you're not on their network. I'm sure other carriers have the same if not more restrictive limits in place. I don't think you can fault Sprint for advertising unlimited data but then not paying Verizon to use as much of their data as you want.

    BTW the ad does clearly show "on the Sprint Network" when Hesse is talking about the definition of unlimited, as well as at the end of the ad.
    Touchscreens are a fad.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by 6tr6tr View Post
    I agree. And I'm annoyed. Clearly price means nothing to the hundred plus million people on AT&T and Verizon, and that means the prices rise for everyone. I really don't get it. You get LESS and pay MORE. Sure, in some areas Sprint might not be good service, or you need a world phone, but I know a LOT of people who don't need a world phone and are in amazing Sprint service areas, yet they pay a ton more for AT&T or Verizon and don't even have unlimited texting or data!
    As of April 2011, Sprint no longer has unlimited texting. Sprint has changed their policy which means I can't get text alerts from MSNBC, weather, stock updates, local news updates, and nor can I text in for my answer to survey questions. Basically, Sprint is asking businesses to pay a fee to receive or send messages to Sprint customer. Businesses that offer free message alerts to provide updates are saying no.

    Thus, I can text my family, but even though I have Sprints unlimited text account I can't subscribe to and receive texts to get updates, vote, etc. This is worthless to me. If I can only receive text from my family, then it would be better to pay the .10cent a text than to have services totally unavailable to me.

    I have four lines and my family is asking me to wait until July to move so that we can see what new phones are out on the various carriers. I'm waiting, but I'm so peeved about not being able to get traffic updates and other alerts that I received for years, that I don't know if I'll really be able to wait 2 more months.

    I care about cost, but I also care about convenience and reliability. Not being able to send or receive messages because Sprint is trying to charge the customer and their receiver, doesn't work for me and leaves a bad taste in my month. What will they change next? Will unlimited data only be if I stay w/in 50 miles of my home or w/in my state? I don't think I care to find out. I'd prefer to pay $5 more a line and not play with whether or not I can send texts to businesses that offer me free services then to have to wonder which part of texting is unlimited and how is it defined.
  10. djmcgee's Avatar
    Posts
    626 Posts
    Global Posts
    627 Global Posts
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by bdhu2001 View Post
    As of April 2011, Sprint no longer has unlimited texting. Sprint has changed their policy which means I can't get text alerts from MSNBC, weather, stock updates, local news updates, and nor can I text in for my answer to survey questions. Basically, Sprint is asking businesses to pay a fee to receive or send messages to Sprint customer. Businesses that offer free message alerts to provide updates are saying no.

    Thus, I can text my family, but even though I have Sprints unlimited text account I can't subscribe to and receive texts to get updates, vote, etc. This is worthless to me. If I can only receive text from my family, then it would be better to pay the .10cent a text than to have services totally unavailable to me.

    I have four lines and my family is asking me to wait until July to move so that we can see what new phones are out on the various carriers. I'm waiting, but I'm so peeved about not being able to get traffic updates and other alerts that I received for years, that I don't know if I'll really be able to wait 2 more months.

    I care about cost, but I also care about convenience and reliability. Not being able to send or receive messages because Sprint is trying to charge the customer and their receiver, doesn't work for me and leaves a bad taste in my month. What will they change next? Will unlimited data only be if I stay w/in 50 miles of my home or w/in my state? I don't think I care to find out. I'd prefer to pay $5 more a line and not play with whether or not I can send texts to businesses that offer me free services then to have to wonder which part of texting is unlimited and how is it defined.
    That texting fee change is only for business that send bulk texts (weather, traffic, sports, etc.) and does not impact your personal texting at all. These businesses decided not to pony up to Sprint's fee (which I am not surprised about) and thus won't send texts to Sprint's customers. An inconvenience but certainly doesn't impact your personal texting.
    Dan
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by djmcgee View Post
    That texting fee change is only for business that send bulk texts (weather, traffic, sports, etc.) and does not impact your personal texting at all. These businesses decided not to pony up to Sprint's fee (which I am not surprised about) and thus won't send texts to Sprint's customers. An inconvenience but certainly doesn't impact your personal texting.
    Actually I can't text the businesses either. So to me that affects my ability to use unlimited text. It would be different if it was only the businesses ability to text us. It would still mean that I couldn't get an update. But the fee is also for them receiving text from Sprint customers. Thus, when I'm watching the news and their doing a text survey, I can't send my opinion. I consider that impacting my personal texting. That's how I use my individual text. That's me personally texting my opinion to a business or whoever else I want to share my opinion with. As I said texting to family and friends wouldn't cost nearly as much if I paid .10 per text I'd probably spend less than $2 per month.

    They've taken away my freedom of where I can text to, because they can't get the business to pay to receive a text from their customer. When I make phone calls, the businesses don't pay Sprint, as well as their own phone company to receive my call. Why should they pay for the text. In addition, when a business call my number, they only pay their personal phone company and not Sprint.

    We've already heard about companies, I believe VZW is one, trying to change surfing the web to different layers of web surfing so that they make some sites totally unavailable to their customers.

    Sprint, and people attempting to justify Sprint's action, state that people can still use other weather alert sites, other news sites, other sport alerts sites. That may be true, but it take away my freedom of choice for the company I want to do business with and I'm paying for the privilege. I pay over $200 per month for my family to have smart phones. I am not getting a free service. If Sprint needs to charge their customers more, then charge more. I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with them taking my options and everyone acting as if they haven't curtailed my experience and personal texting.

    I now have to pull out my laptop or be on my computer when I watch my nightly news in order to vote. The smart phone was supposed to make it possible for me to not need my PC as often. This move takes me in the other direction.

    If I find that VZW also has this issue, then it may be time for me to give up on the smart phone. I'm okay with that, I was considering it anyway.
  12. #52  
    I get the newspaper delivered to my front door and wirelessly to my Kindle. And I listen to my news, via Satellite radio, when I'm in my car. But thank you for the advice. I don't have a problem with the price of the stamp. If I did, I wouldn't be willing to go back to VZW and pay an extra $100 per month. As I said, I wouldn't mind if Sprint charged more to me, their customer. I do mind that they cut off my options, because someone who isn't their customer won't pay them.

    I know my post is a bit peeved. But I've been calling Sprint about why my text messages won't go since April 12th. They've checked to see if it's blocked. They've had me try this, pull the battery, etc and kept saying that the issue is noting to do with Sprint. They've wasted over an hour of my time every-time I called, and I've driven to their corporate store for help;but none of the Sprint support/repair people knew or advised me about the change in Sprint's text policy. Had they done that by second or third time I called, I'd probably not be as peeved.

    I had to keep researching and call back and advise them (the Sprint 1-888 #). They said they were unaware and I'm willing to believe that didn't intentionally state an un-truth the 7 other times I contacted them. I was informed via mail, via constant text message, and direct calls to me that three of my four smart phone lines are eligible for renewal. The fourth one is eligible next month.

    Even when I called for Tech support I was advised of eligible free upgrades/renewal. Why couldn't Sprint have also advised all of their Tech support about this change in Policy so that I wouldn't needlessly waste time calling them and driving down to their site about something that isn't broken? All four line are out of contract and will not have an early termination fee in July. But if I only want to wait until next week (May 2011), three of the lines will not have an early termination fee and the fee is only $50 for the fourth line.

    Since I paid $175 early termination fee on three lines to come to Sprint for the Pre, the only thing that has me waiting until July is the family wanting to see if something nifty (new phone) will be out in June. They don't want us to sign new contracts and want different phones a month later.

    When I came to Sprint for the Pre, I paid for VZW (for the family) and Sprint (for myself) for the first two months and was willing to let them stay with VZW for the coverage and service (if that's what the family wanted). They chose to come to Sprint and have one family plan.
    Last edited by berdinkerdickle; 04/30/2011 at 02:31 PM.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Syndil View Post
    Data is unlimited on Sprint as long as you are not roaming. Roaming is free on Sprint, but it isn't free to Sprint, so they have to enforce a limit when you're not on their network. I'm sure other carriers have the same if not more restrictive limits in place. I don't think you can fault Sprint for advertising unlimited data but then not paying Verizon to use as much of their data as you want.

    BTW the ad does clearly show "on the Sprint Network" when Hesse is talking about the definition of unlimited, as well as at the end of the ad.
    I can tell you from first hand experience that Verizon does not limit our use in there partner areas. We actually do our most use in the partner network areas of Verizon. And like I said we did get one of there unpublished discounts despite us having our highest usage in the partner networks.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    I can tell you from first hand experience that Verizon does not limit our use in there partner areas. We actually do our most use in the partner network areas of Verizon. And like I said we did get one of there unpublished discounts despite us having our highest usage in the partner networks.
    Well, 2 things:

    1. Yes it does because there's a limit even on Verizon's own network (There's NO unlimited data with Verizon and the limit's now a paltry 2GB)

    2. That's likely because Verizon probably owns the pipes that their partners are running partially off of (the lines in the ground)
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by 6tr6tr View Post
    Well, 2 things:

    1. Yes it does because there's a limit even on Verizon's own network (There's NO unlimited data with Verizon and the limit's now a paltry 2GB)

    2. That's likely because Verizon probably owns the pipes that their partners are running partially off of (the lines in the ground)
    That's pretty much it. If you look at VZW's map, there are very, very few areas where VZW has "extended" coverage (what they call roaming), and I'd wager most of those are probably cornfields. This does of course speak well for Verizon's coverage. They have the best of any carrier.

    However, you will also notice that the vast majority of their "extended" coverage is limited to 1xRTT. So if you're data-roaming with VZW, it'd be fairly difficult to reach your limit (5GB or 2GB), given the speed restrictions.

    Sprint has far less native coverage, but they do have much more 3G roaming coverage to be concerned over. VZW probably takes the position that, with the very small area of 3G roaming they have to worry about, if someone wants to reach their limit in that area, it's worth the risk of paying for it. Sprint, on the other hand--since they have unlimited data and more 3G roaming areas to worry about--has to put some sort of stopgap in place to keep people from running up their bill with other carriers.
    Last edited by Syndil; 05/01/2011 at 08:05 AM.
    Touchscreens are a fad.
  16. #56  
    Hm. I hadn't really looked at the overall map since they took over Alltel. They have converted a lot of their previous 3G roaming areas into primary network. Guess that explains why they don't care about us doing pretty much all our network usage in their very few extended 3G network areas.

    Verizon doesn't have a cap policy any more, though they barely enforced the one they had before at 5GB. Their current policy for throttling is a lot less agressive than their previous and even with my higher than 5GB data usage a month doesn't see throttling.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions