Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 212

Thread: Verizon sending letters to LTE in Rural America users concerning termination (letter

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pikeville, KY
    Posts
    356
    Device(s)
    iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0

    Verizon sending letters to LTE in Rural America users concerning termination (letter

    Well, Verizon sent another slew of letters to users in our area. I was able to get ahold of one. A Facebook search of Verizon among my friends list numerous post of friends receiving the letter.

    See below of one I found.
    Current Device: Black iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier: AT&T

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    2,840
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S7 edge, Note 5, Galaxy Tab S2
    Carrier(s)
    T,T-Mo,VZ.
    Feedback Score
    0
    ........................Wow!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,664
    Device(s)
    Iphone 4
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    So is there no Verizon service in that area?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Iphone 4, haven't looked back..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,801
    Device(s)
    iPhone X 256 GB Space Gray
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DOTsucks View Post
    So is there no Verizon service in that area?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    LTEiRA areas have LTE through a local carrier (i.e. Bluegrass wireless) using Verizon's spectrum. CDMA is roaming and LTE is considered "native".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is Verizon helping to protect their partner/local provider's investment. Verizon does not themselves offer or sell primary service in LTEiRA partner service areas, so they technically cannot sell service there. Not offering service there is the reason they came up with the LTE in Rural America program. The local carrier made the investment in their service area's infrastructure, backhaul, sites, towers, etc. Verizon purchased none of that. The local carrier made the additional investment in equipment for LTEiRA service. Verizon only provided the spectrum for use for LTE service.

    Verizon is seeing that these customers are using all or nearly all of their data while in these partner service areas, so they think these people actually live there and are not just passing through or using service occasionally as normal roamers do, so they are sending these letters out informing these people that since they "live there" they cannot be direct Verizon customers and they must switch to the local carrier for primary service.

    This makes sense, the local carrier made the investment to provide service there, Verizon never spent any money there at all, yet they are receiving the monthly payments for service instead of the local carrier, which is wrong. The local carrier needs to be compensated. Verizon is doing the right thing here.

    It should make no difference in the end whether one is a Bluegrass customer or a Verizon customer, the service would be the same since all service is same-as-native, so if one LIVES in the Bluegrass service area, they should subscribe to Bluegrass, not Verizon. The thing Verizon did wrong was to sell them service in the first place if their place of residence is in the Bluegrass service area. Bluegrass would not have sold these people service if they live outside their service area, so the same applies to Verizon.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    IA, NE
    Posts
    1,290
    Device(s)
    Pixel, iPhone 8, iPad Pro, OnePlus3
    Carrier(s)
    VZW, T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    So far all these people that are getting kicked off are from Kentucky right?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    145
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    So is VW kicking off all of those customers that have signed up for unlimited data? Or only the ones that use a bunch of data? So say you have some parents there that use 1GB each in a month, are they kicking them off? No? Only the people that actually use a bunch of data. I'm a VW fan, but that's kind of bull crap. Either don't sell in that area, or let everyone that signs on stay on. They shouldn't be allowed to "cherry pick" their customers.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    286
    Feedback Score
    0
    Sounds like it could be another way to get people off of the older unlimited.
    """new T-Mobile customer"""

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    563
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ggore View Post
    Verizon is seeing that these customers are using all or nearly all of their data while in these partner service areas, so they think these people actually live there and are not just passing through or using service occasionally as normal roamers do, so they are sending these letters out informing these people that since they "live there" they cannot be direct Verizon customers and they must switch to the local carrier for primary service.
    The part I left on as a quote is what brings up my question. What is happening to those that use all their Verizon data in these areas because when they are at home they do their surfing, etc. on their computer using another ISP?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pikeville, KY
    Posts
    356
    Device(s)
    iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ggore View Post
    This is Verizon helping to protect their partner/local provider's investment. Verizon does not themselves offer or sell primary service in LTEiRA partner service areas, so they technically cannot sell service there. Not offering service there is the reason they came up with the LTE in Rural America program. The local carrier made the investment in their service area's infrastructure, backhaul, sites, towers, etc. Verizon purchased none of that. The local carrier made the additional investment in equipment for LTEiRA service. Verizon only provided the spectrum for use for LTE service.

    Verizon is seeing that these customers are using all or nearly all of their data while in these partner service areas, so they think these people actually live there and are not just passing through or using service occasionally as normal roamers do, so they are sending these letters out informing these people that since they "live there" they cannot be direct Verizon customers and they must switch to the local carrier for primary service.

    This makes sense, the local carrier made the investment to provide service there, Verizon never spent any money there at all, yet they are receiving the monthly payments for service instead of the local carrier, which is wrong. The local carrier needs to be compensated. Verizon is doing the right thing here.

    It should make no difference in the end whether one is a Bluegrass customer or a Verizon customer, the service would be the same since all service is same-as-native, so if one LIVES in the Bluegrass service area, they should subscribe to Bluegrass, not Verizon. The thing Verizon did wrong was to sell them service in the first place if their place of residence is in the Bluegrass service area. Bluegrass would not have sold these people service if they live outside their service area, so the same applies to Verizon.
    This is not Verizon protecting the local carrier, it’s about Verizon protecting themselves. Verizon, and I’ve explained this many times before but nobody seems to believe me, DOES pay local carriers for roaming. Verizon is losing money on this. If Verizon cared about the local carrier before this, this is what they would’ve done. But it took people being on unlimited and fat roaming checks combined with them already being cautious due to increasing competition that got them to look into this matter, in my opinion. I think Verizon should’ve thought this through by making sure they had throttling mechanisms in place before allowing people with our billing address to sign up for the plan.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,568
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by justinkk2005 View Post
    Verizon, and I’ve explained this many times before but nobody seems to believe me, DOES pay local carriers for roaming. Verizon is losing money on this.
    If they're losing money on this, then they have every right to discontinue the money-losing accounts. They are even waiving device payment balances to make the transition easier.

    But I agree with ggore, those customers should be paying the local carrier directly for their usage as the local carrier is the one who made the investments in the area.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    DC/Baltimore
    Posts
    98
    Device(s)
    iPhone SE
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    LTEiRA areas have LTE through a local carrier (i.e. Bluegrass wireless) using Verizon's spectrum. CDMA is roaming and LTE is considered "native".
    Neither are counted as roaming. Verizon has no official domestic roaming limits at all. This is the first I've heard of Verizon cutting anyone off for excessive domestic roaming.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    336
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    If they're losing money on this, then they have every right to discontinue the money-losing accounts. They are even waiving device payment balances to make the transition easier.

    But I agree with ggore, those customers should be paying the local carrier directly for their usage as the local carrier is the one who made the investments in the area.
    When I first saw the letter, I was thinking "oh, more typical Verizon tactics". But I think the waiving of the device payments sort of makes it okay. Since their phones will be unlocked and paid off, customers should at least be able to go to another carrier without any issues.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by justinkk2005 View Post
    This is not Verizon protecting the local carrier, it’s about Verizon protecting themselves. Verizon, and I’ve explained this many times before but nobody seems to believe me, DOES pay local carriers for roaming. Verizon is losing money on this. If Verizon cared about the local carrier before this, this is what they would’ve done. But it took people being on unlimited and fat roaming checks combined with them already being cautious due to increasing competition that got them to look into this matter, in my opinion. I think Verizon should’ve thought this through by making sure they had throttling mechanisms in place before allowing people with our billing address to sign up for the plan.
    I totally agree with this. They aren't protecting the local carriers. If they were they wouldn't let people activate service in these areas. Like I said in another thread, my in laws just signed up for the UDP and financed three phones in the Bluegrass Cellular LTEiRA coverage area. Verizon paid their ETF with AT&T as well.

    Does anyone know if any of these letters were sent to customers outside of the Appalachian Wireless coverage area? I switched from Bluegrass back in March and I'm not going back. They offer unlimited now but it's throttled after 22 gigs, not deprioritized. I'll switch to T-Mobile if their coverage is getting better like they claim it is.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pikeville, KY
    Posts
    356
    Device(s)
    iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by EricB294 View Post
    I totally agree with this. They aren't protecting the local carriers. If they were they wouldn't let people activate service in these areas. Like I said in another thread, my in laws just signed up for the UDP and financed three phones in the Bluegrass Cellular LTEiRA coverage area. Verizon paid their ETF with AT&T as well.

    Does anyone know if any of these letters were sent to customers outside of the Appalachian Wireless coverage area? I switched from Bluegrass back in March and I'm not going back. They offer unlimited now but it's throttled after 22 gigs, not deprioritized. I'll switch to T-Mobile if their coverage is getting better like they claim it is.
    I would say this will happen everywhere. Verizon did renegotiate rates with AW, though. I’ve been told roaming checks are in the millions per month. Local carrier is loving this. I can’t say much more than that to protect the identity of my sources.

    T-Mobile has a massive expansion effort in EKY. Almost every crown castle site has upcoming improvements for T-Mobile and I’ve been in contact with engineers are I emailed John Legere. They took my input and made some new coverage requests, and this is straight from the engineers mouth. They had build plans in areas that didn’t make sense and I informed them of this and now all is good if approved to modify their plans here.

Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Can I use a Verizon phone for an LTE in Rural America Carrier?
    By justinkk2005 in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-17-2013, 07:31 PM
  2. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-16-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-11-2012, 04:05 PM
  4. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 05-01-2012, 09:36 PM
  5. LTE in Rural America Program (Appalachian Wireless)
    By justinkk2005 in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-20-2012, 09:29 AM

Bookmarks