Alltel Begins EV-DO Rollout

... also they have no plans at the moment to bring it out for anything but laptops.

Granted that in time they will release it to their handsets, but at this time, they pose no threat to Verizion.

Um... Verizon doesn't charge for roaming anymore... 😕

Um... Just checked verizonwireless.com and they charge roaming for certain calling plans... 😕

Certain calling plans, only local digital choice. America's Choice and North America's Choice no longer incurr roaming charges while in the U.S.

Okay, then my statement that Verizon charges roaming stands, because, they still do.

the whole roaming thing was not about voice but data...you guys are straying off subject

Yeah, but to prevent roaming, they completely disabled the phones ability to roam, making them useless in fringe areas of coverage.

True, they copied Cingular, too many people were complaining about roaming charges, so they got rid of roaming.

One slight difference: CDMA can use analog in an area where there is no CDMA signal, GSM can't. The likelihood of straying onto an "unfriendly" network exists for Verizon where it doesn't for Cingular. All GSM carriers are roaming partners while not all analog service is from a roaming partner. For Cingular to do it was not a stretch, for Verizon it was a bigger stretch.

I am in a very fringe area and they work great for voice. Their challenge has been that Sprint, their # 1 roaming partner uses Java2me rather than BREW. If they all used a common O.S. then interoperability would happen on data as well. USCC uses BREW, but are not developing data products aggressively. The GSM community has the same problem where a carrier has not deployed GPRS or EDGE.

HeroPsychoDreamer said:
Probably not, at least not Verizon, cause that means they cant drill people on roaming charges. And when has Verizon ever done anything NOT to make more money? They're all about screwing people to make more money, making roaming agreements is the opposite of their motton, "Get Screwed Now".

Especially since every other carrier is not about the money. I mean, who needs to make money to survive, right? C'mon, guy...every carrier finds some way to screw you out of your hard earned money. Verizon's just got a very restrictive data policy.

Well said. I was beginning to believe that T-Mobile, Sprint and Cingular are non-profit corporations only existing for the benefit of mankind. Now I find the truth; they want to make a profit. My entire world view has been shattered.

SPCSVZWJeff said:
Well said. I was beginning to believe that T-Mobile, Sprint and Cingular are non-profit corporations only existing for the benefit of mankind. Now I find the truth; they want to make a profit. My entire world view has been shattered.

It'd be naive to believe otherwise, Jeff. Sprint has their terrible customer service (or so I've been led to believe...I haven't had any earth shattering problems with them), Cingular has what some would call a deceptive practice in the form of rollover minutes, and Tmobile, well, Tmobile doesn't necessarily cover you everywhere. On and on and on...they all have their weaknesses, and they all want one thing: Your money.

That was just a bit of sarcasm aimed at the people who seem to be upset that Verizon wants to make money.
I think they have a bit of a double standard here: They praise their carrier's high ARPU and then bash their competition, Especially Verizon for being too expensive. If their ARPU is as high as Verizon's then they are just as expensive.
Companies with a low ARPU, like T-Mobile have fewer dollars to build out their network and make improvements. Hence you have T-Mobile's postage stamp sized network. This is not a slam of T-Mobile because they do a lot of good things. Their net adds over the last few quarters are amazing. But they have gotten there by being the great discounter and are suffering the consequences of it.
Sprint's custo...
(continues)

SPCSVZWJeff said:
That was just a bit of sarcasm aimed at the people who seem to be upset that Verizon wants to make money.
I think they have a bit of a double standard here: They praise their carrier's high ARPU and then bash their competition, Especially Verizon for being too expensive. If their ARPU is as high as Verizon's then they are just as expensive.
Companies with a low ARPU, like T-Mobile have fewer dollars to build out their network and make improvements. Hence you have T-Mobile's postage stamp sized network. This is not a slam of T-Mobile because they do a lot of good things. Their net adds over the last few quarters are amazing. But they have gotten there by being the great discounter and are suffering th

...
(continues)

In the very early days they were terrible, but then so was everyone else at that time (1998-2000) They also have the task of cathing up with the rest of the industry on coverage with everyone else having a 10 year + head start. In all fairness T-Mobile has the same challenge so people really should look at both Sprint and T-Mobile and give them some credit. It takes 2-3 Sprint or T-Mobile towers to equal one cellular tower in terms of area covered due to the frequency and yet both have coverage that is competitive in most major markets. Maybe a question that can be asked is why are the incumbent cellular carriers not further ahead in coverage than they are?

SPCSVZWJeff said:
In the very early days they were terrible, but then so was everyone else at that time (1998-2000) They also have the task of cathing up with the rest of the industry on coverage with everyone else having a 10 year + head start. In all fairness T-Mobile has the same challenge so people really should look at both Sprint and T-Mobile and give them some credit. It takes 2-3 Sprint or T-Mobile towers to equal one cellular tower in terms of area covered due to the frequency and yet both have coverage that is competitive in most major markets. Maybe a question that can be asked is why are the incumbent cellular carriers not further ahead in coverage than they are?

Complacency. That's the only answer...
(continues)

SPCSVZWJeff said:
In the very early days they were terrible, but then so was everyone else at that time (1998-2000) They also have the task of cathing up with the rest of the industry on coverage with everyone else having a 10 year + head start. In all fairness T-Mobile has the same challenge so people really should look at both Sprint and T-Mobile and give them some credit. It takes 2-3 Sprint or T-Mobile towers to equal one cellular tower in terms of area covered due to the frequency and yet both have coverage that is competitive in most major markets. Maybe a question that can be asked is why are the incumbent cellular carriers not further ahead in coverage than they are?

wow I never gave that any thoug...
(continues)