|
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Hometown on October 18, 2007, 11:47:43 am I’m unhappy with the way AT&T Wireless turned over client records to the government. I was impressed with the way Verizon did not. Consequently, I’m considering a switch to Verizon. [FYI, I was wrong about Verizon. Other posters pointed out Verizon also turned over client records.]
Does Verizon or other wireless providers have good service and good coverage in the Tulsa area? I would greatly appreciate hearing from users of other cell phone services. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Conan71 on October 18, 2007, 12:07:24 pm What client records did AT&T turn over to the gov't?
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Ibanez on October 18, 2007, 12:08:43 pm I switched from Cingular/AT&T a few months ago due to declining service.
I moved to Verizon and have had no issues. In fact I think the call quality is higher and I'm getting a stronger signal. Not to say everyone would get a better signal, but at least where I use my phone the most that is the case. I have the LG VX8600 phone and love it. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Hometown on October 18, 2007, 12:14:33 pm First thing that popped up on Google.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/us/26nsa.html "Judge Rejects Customer Suit Over Records From AT&T By ADAM LIPTAK Published: July 26, 2006 A federal judge in Chicago dismissed a class-action lawsuit yesterday against AT&T that claimed it had illegally given information about its customers to the National Security Agency. The judge, Matthew F. Kennelly, based his ruling on the state secrets privilege, which can bar suits that would disclose information harmful to national security. ..." Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: sgrizzle on October 18, 2007, 12:16:52 pm quote: Doesn't seem so black and white to me: Verizon hands over records without warrants: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501857.html Verizon shares customer data with business partners: http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/FREE/71012004/1002/FREE Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Breadburner on October 18, 2007, 12:39:13 pm I could not be more happy with At&t wireless......
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: NellieBly on October 18, 2007, 12:45:31 pm ATT and Verizon handed over customer records. I think Qwest was asked and refused.
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: USRufnex on October 18, 2007, 12:59:09 pm http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/FREE/71012004/1002/FREE
Actually, that's a new story and is pretty BIG news for VZW. You'll notice previously it was Verizon and NOT Verizon Wireless that engaged in those practices... The incident 1-2 years ago was a public relations black eye for AT&T and Verizon. Actually, VZW is very much a separate company from Verizon Communications. This becomes problematic b/c VZW will be unable to offer the kind of "bundled" services AT&T seems to be pushing these days... Verizon's workers are largely unionized, VZW's are not... Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Conan71 on October 18, 2007, 01:07:27 pm I don't use my cell phone to talk to terrorists, make threats against the gov't, order illicit drugs, or prostitutes so I really don't give a rip.
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Hometown on October 18, 2007, 02:00:20 pm quote: I stand corrected. Looks like Verizon did the same thing as AT&T. Well, what is Qwest like? Any Qwest users? Is there a viable alternative to AT&T and Verizon? I generally like to direct my dollars to companies I feel good about though it is becoming more difficult to find companies I feel good about. I've got several boycotts of retailers going. Thank goodness for Target and Dillards. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: sgrizzle on October 18, 2007, 02:11:42 pm quote: Qwest doesn't do anything in Oklahoma. I'm on day 19 of living walmart free myself. That's the longest I've ever made it. I need a patch or some gum. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Rowdy on October 18, 2007, 02:53:42 pm Verizon rocks. Their coverage is very good and their network is growing monthly.
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Noodlez on October 18, 2007, 04:26:35 pm I use Sprint and a Motorola Q, overall i am happy. Price can't be beat with a SERO plan. My signal strength isn't always the best where I live but I never get dropped calls and they still sound fine.
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: tulsa1603 on October 18, 2007, 05:47:56 pm quote: I'm on my second year of Wal-Mart free living. Once you get used to it, you forget it even exists. Living in midtown helps since there isn't one that close. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: sgrizzle on October 18, 2007, 07:39:16 pm I have a supercenter and a neighborhood market, both within a mile.
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: tim huntzinger on October 19, 2007, 08:13:54 am Funny that the telecoms want immunity from any laws that may have been broken for the NSA's sake. But, hey, let us sue about the iPhone ye consumer advocates . . .
I think a more interesting angle would be if the telecoms cooperated with US intelligence agencies to facilitate the acquisition of wireless devices by potential evildoers. Of course, I have evidence that points to that. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: tim huntzinger on October 19, 2007, 10:47:23 am Surprise! Senator Rockfeller is flush with telecom cash (http://"http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html"), receiving $25K in the last year alone from Verizon.
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Johnboy976 on October 19, 2007, 11:31:52 am Overall Verizon has been rated the highest in customer satisfaction for any major cell phone company.
I have both AT&T and Verizon, and I can say that if it weren't for the fact that I live in Kentucky, I would have gone Verizon and never looked back. As Kentucky is one of five states where AT&T has better overall coverage than Verizon, I have both. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Hometown on October 19, 2007, 11:53:39 am Okay, so if Qwest is not available, does anyone know if US Cellular or Sprint turned over customer records? Noodlez says Sprint's signal strength isn't so great where Noodlez lives. Are there any other Sprint or US Cellular users that would be willing to share their opinion on their service?
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: tulsa_fan on October 19, 2007, 01:28:07 pm I have been a US Cellular customer for 7 years. I don't have any trouble with them. They are helpful, there are a million stores, the service is good. I rarely lose a call, anyway, I'd recommend them. My only complain from them in having been loyal for 7 years, I'd like to upgrade phones and not have to pain so much when its not time for renewal.
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: inteller on October 19, 2007, 06:16:36 pm quote: this is why I would only use WCDMA service because it is easy to swap SIM cards. CDMA sucks big time for this reason. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Breadburner on October 19, 2007, 06:38:32 pm US Cellular sucks....
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: tim huntzinger on October 20, 2007, 07:52:54 am I must say that the call center for Cingular-cum-at&t whipped Verizon's arse in the New York market recently, not only reducing churn but helping to increase the subscriber base. Turns out the smash-jaw New Yokkers respond well to us easy-going Tulsans.
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: USRufnex on October 20, 2007, 08:51:04 am ^^last 2 posts = spin or in BB's case, the story of a disgruntled customer... (there are many disgruntled cell phone customers for ALL wireless providers, btw... problem is industry-wide).
any real info or stats?... if you don't post them, I will... Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: tim huntzinger on October 20, 2007, 09:25:45 am No doubt, link it up soccerboy. I have not heard that BB's experience is representative of USC's customer service, but I know that the individual companies' satisfaction varies from region to region and are all pretty much in the same range.
In my case I just want folk to know that at&t has a major presence here and booth jockey Tulsans do a great job for at&t. Verizon has very little invested in our region, so if keeping it local matters this is something to consider. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Wilbur on October 20, 2007, 09:44:16 am I've had US Cellular for many years and could not be happier and will continue to be their customer in the near future. They treat their customers great and it's easy to get a hold of their customer service reps or to contact a store.
I had AT&T through my employer several years ago and IT SUCKED. Their customer service was the absolute worst and you could never call a local store without having to go through an 800 number some place. I would love to be using an iphone, but refuse since it can only be used through AT&T. Plus, I always know when I'm talking to someone using AT&T because their reception always blows. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: tim huntzinger on October 20, 2007, 10:19:10 am Hmmmmm, 'bur, sure it is not one of them say-wilbur-lemme-call-you-back-my-reception-sucks kind of things? May not be the reception! [:D]
Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: USRufnex on October 20, 2007, 11:32:20 pm quote: Of course AT&T has a major presence here... this is Southwestern Bell country. SBC = AT&T. They bought the name. The northeast is Atlantic Bell/NYNEX, etc country... and Verizon Wireless is the offspring of Atlantic Bell and Britain's Vodaphone... the Cingular and AT&T merger was messy. The conversion from TDMA to GSM was also messy. They've come a long way from those days and have reduced "churn" alot in the last couple of years. Last I checked, a Tulsa customer will still get to talk to a "booth Jockey" in Lubbock... and everyone in the NY and Philly markets will still call customer service and get Tulsa... Those companies are the revenge of the baby bells. Which is fine, I guess. The nice thing is that VZW provides another comparable option to AT&T/Cingular and Sprint. If you drive to Muskogee or OKC, your extended area of VZW will be US Cellular. US Cellular is currently not the best option for folks who have to have "cutting-edge" equipment and technology. Their phones simply aren't going to have as many bells/whistles until US Cell starts putting in the big $$$ for wireless broadband EV-DO towers. They've done this in Milwaukee and will likely roll out to other cities in the next couple of years. US Cell is considered a regional provider (6th largest behind Alltel, T-Mobile, Sprint/Nextel, VZW and AT&T/Cingular) which also offers national plans with no roaming to compete with other national carriers. Verizon Wireless has had a very impressive rollout in Tulsa.... they just entered the market last January. ALL their towers are broadband EVDO and their slave driver has been getting those broadband cell towers up and running over the past few months-- that coverage map has doubled in the past six months. In the next year or so, VZW will enter the OKC market which will cover them in all 100 of the nations top markets. http://www.jdpower.com/telecom/ratings/wireless/index.asp Hometown, the story from a couple of years ago only involved landline carriers AT&T and Verizon Communications volunteering customer info. I'd be more frightened of yahoo and google and internet "spyware" if I were worried about my privacy. US Cell is not sharing information at this time... the kind of info that gets into the hands of marketers... who somehow know your tastes in music downloads or games.... kinda frightening how much potential there is for this kind of information sharing... Now if I could just have ISP's share information with my spammers letting them know I will NEVER buy herbal viagra or a penis extension... thanks. [:D] Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: AMP on October 21, 2007, 11:50:11 am I have owned two Cricket phones and service for it seems like 7 years or as long as they have been in Tulsa. Never have had any issues with them, Travel Time works as good or better than my Sprint does. Took both them 32,000 miles last Summer and the Sprint had a signal less times than the Motorola Cricket did.
www.mycricket.com Cricket has no contract, month to month EASY BUTTON deal. Don't like it turn it off no problem. Need it back, turn it back on, way too easy. Also all Cricket areas now servered, you have the same unlimited talk tiime 24/7 as you do in our home service area. Have had up to 20 employees on our cell plan at a single time using US Cellulars, SWB Ericksons, I have never found a better value or service than the Cricket deal. Until you travel around 50,000 plus miles from Florida to Washington State and from New York to San Diego and several stops in between, you really don't have a concept of National Cell Service. With the Cricket deal, their Travel Time locates the closest tower/service to lock onto. I rarely found a location where the Cricket, which seems to use most services, had no signal. Majority of the folks working in the local offices for the cell services don't do much traveling outside of their local village. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: USRufnex on October 21, 2007, 11:21:12 pm AMP--- "Majority of the folks working in the local offices for the cell services don't do much traveling outside of their local village."
LOL. If you're happy with your Cricket service, fine. Every carrier has its strengths and weaknesses... Cricket offers unlimited calling within a relatively small local area. Nationwide long distance is free which is industry standard. Cricket is the only local wireless provider I know of where you will be roaming in OKC or Muskogee... heck, you'll roam anyplace north of Collinsville or south of Bixby. But if you're lucky enough to travel to Wichita or El Paso or KC on a regular basis and don't travel to St Louis or Dallas or Chicago, it's a great deal cuz you won't be roaming in certain cities... http://www.mycricket.com/cricketcoveragemaps/area?zipcode=74146 ...and of course you won't be under a contract because you'll be paying these prices for a phone... http://www.mycricket.com/cricketphones/ Back to topic.... I'm not sure boycotting a certain carrier based on previous press releases accomplishes a lot... the best thing you can do is write letters to the company you decide to use, telling them how you want your privacy to be respected, and that you will not give approval to have that information "shared" voluntarily with government agencies or with the company's marketing dept or with any of their third-party "partners." Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Rico on October 22, 2007, 06:07:44 am I think they meed to put up a lot more of those gorgeous cell towers....
Plant at least one along every major arterial in Tulsa.. That way when they convert to "Satellite Phones" they can take 25 years to take them down...[}:)] Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: tim huntzinger on October 22, 2007, 07:42:30 am Cingular-cum-at&t could always move its call centers to Texas, I suppose. at&t customers may get to talk to Lubbockians, but the presence of so many at&t workers has helped educate Tulsans about the products and helped market penetration.
Sure, Rico, whenever the customer wants to customer wants to sling an EMF monster satphone, the wireless cos. will have useless towers. Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: AMP on October 22, 2007, 10:25:55 pm quote: I have only purchased two phones since I have been with Cricket. My Nokia works fine today, however I had to upgrade to a newer phone for the Travel Time feature to work outside of the Home area. It cost me $99.00 one time charge and I have had it for 2 years now. Still works like it did the day I bought it. Of course I only use my cell phone for voice use. I don't want or need internet, text messages, games, fancy ring tones, lights, color, or any bells and whistles. All I want is very simple: 1. A very loud and vibrating signal when I have an incoming call. Don't need no fancy song playing or some stupid voice recording. 2. A tough and tightly sealed case for dirty and rough use around dusty environments. One you can drop over and over again and it still works, like the old Black Heavy Duty NOKIA did for years. 3. A battery that will last for up to 6 hours and around 3 hours talk time. I carry three spare charged batteries with me most times. 4. Storage for 500 Names and Numbers 5. Buttons and Display large enough to operate and see. Don't want any fancy flip phone, just a plain unit that the keys and display are always there, no cheap China hinge and internal cable to break. The older NOKIA worked just fine for the majority of us. They need to upgrade the software/chip in that style of phone, offer it for $40 and bring it back. 6. A charger that can charge the Battery for the Cell Phone without it being in the phone. NOKIA sold chargers that would charge your phone and a spare battery or just your phone or the spare battery all the same time or separate. Best deal for a cell phone ever made. Those car chargers never work properly, and having to switch batteries in and out of you handset just to charge the thing has to be the worst move the Cell Phone manufactures have made in the past decade. Most people that have limited minutes on their plan have no clue of battery talk time limits. With Cricket I can talk 24/7 non-stop for the same monthly fee. So battery life is critical at most times. I am more than happy with the service from Cricket, they are by far the best I have had compared to SWB, US Cellular, and Sprint. I have local stores I can go to all over Tulsa, they are all on the network and can activate features in an instant in real time. I recall the old Ma Bell land phones that took up to two weeks to change a simple feature. LOL Same Central Office where the Dial Tone lives for the Cell Phones. Similar to a Business Listing type of rip off. Ma Bell and the alternative phone dial tone providers charge more for a business phone line than a residential and they both run on the same twisted pair and cable to the CO. But, because they can, it costs more. LOL SWB was always playing tricks with the phone book listings for companies that switched off their network. Best one was upon provisioning the customer, the phone directory listing would suddenly list each and every phone number at that address, and not indicate the main line. Customer did not notice the problem until up to 12 months after switching service. New lines would only be activated at the junction box on the customers building, another tech was required to plug in the connection for the inside lines. If a line went down, which they did often on businesses that had been long term with Ma Bell, it typically 90% of the time would be their Credit Card line. LOL Title: Verizon v. AT&T v. Sprint v. US Cellular Post by: Radio on October 26, 2007, 07:36:22 am quote: Those towers are pretty durn sexy.... Amd sat phones? Great concept until you get too many users because of not enough bandwidth, or you go inside. I have had USCC for 12 or more years. Had a variety before that, and before that had IMTS service. USCC has been very good for me, I travel from Maine to Colorado fairly often, and have compared service to that on my Cingular phone, and USCC is much better. (That is largely thanks to their roaming partners in many areas, but with nationwide service, I don't really care who is providing service) Customer service is good, but I have at least 12 phones through them, so they might be nicer to us then someone with 1 line. |