Whats kinda sad is the handset solution is not even worth the trouble as many people turn off the GPS feature of the phone anyways. Unfortunatly its mostly criminals that turn them off as to not be tracked as easely, but it still means anyone can do it too and therefore the money spent in this is useless.

That would piss me off. They should at least offer a free exchange.

I agree- the law appears to apply to Verizon, not the user. If they want my help to comply with the law, I think a fat discount is in order.

@BEYOND If you re-sign the contract, odds are that there are many free phones to choose from.

Cell companies love when you are month to month since that means that they are just making money off you and don't have to worry about subsidizing the cost of the phone. Granted, if they are subsidizing the cost of your phone they have you locked in a contract.

Gawd, I hate cell phone providers.

"and if you fall off your motorcycle in the middle of nowhere and are bleeding to death-you'll have a much better chance of being found before you've shuffled off this mortal coil."

Oddly enough, this happened to me in April. I had a wreck and ruptured my spleen. I'd be dead had it not been for GPS 911.

"and if you fall off your motorcycle in the middle of nowhere and are bleeding to death-you'll have a much better chance of being found before you've shuffled off this mortal coil."

This actually happened to me in April of this year. I had a motorcycle wreck in BFE, broke my left wrist, right arm and ruptured my spleen. I'd be dead if not for GPS 911.

Oh, and not to mention that when you are out of contract it is the best time to talk to retention and get a plan that may be a better deal...plus get a new phone.

@swalve: I agree completely.
This is a requirement that applies to Verizon not the consumer. The consumer should not be affected to this degree, that they shut down his or her service and then holds his\her number hostage for a month.

A free phone and an apology seems fit in this instance.

@SWALVE The law doesn't only apply to Verizon, but to all cell phone providers. If he/she wants a cell phone, then they have to have one with GPS.

Find a GPS enabled cellphone on ebay, buy it, activate it with Verizon, which shouldn't require a contract signing.

This, combined with AT&T's complicity in assisting illegal (re: warrantless) wiretaps is disturbing...disturbing indeed.

Going by the dates on the reviews shown on epinions, that phone is nearly 6 years old. That might as well be the bronze age.

And this is not a new law - the E911 requirements have been in law for years now as pointed out in the original post.

You should talk renewal options with them. Telling them you have no intention of changing phones will only get you dropped, as you found out.

Wouldn't it be in good business practice to give him a new, GPS enabled subsidized cell phone? That way, his month to month contract will remain intact, keeping in the real revenue of the company.

Sometimes I think that major companies realize that giving a little away will result profitable returns.

Way to ignore the issue: she doesn't WANT a GPS-enabled phone. Isn't Consumerist about the customer gettine what he/she wants?

To clarify some, who is to say that this GPS use will not be used for diabolic purposes? Sorry to sound like a tin-foil hat guy, but we've been betrayed in the past (re: AT&T). I doubt the gov't cares $.02 about me personally. But this technology gives the power to follow the movements of large swaths of the population. hello...wakeup

Must...resist...urge...to...condemn...contractwhores...

There's the old standby that one doesn't have to HAVE a cell phone. Don;t like the GPS policy, go use a pay phone.

@Alvis: Well then she doesn't get a cell phone, since it's not up to her or the wireless providers. Sometimes I don't want to pay my bills but I have to cause that's the rules.

To those of you who claim this is Verizon's problem and not his. Since he is out of contract, they have every right to terminate his service. Why should they suffer (fines, etc) because some jackass is still living in 1999. If the OP doesn't want to comply with their network policies and requirements, I suppose it's time to find a new cell phone carrier. They are simply making the decision for him.

Port your number to a GSM carrier where you can take your pick of any phone you want as long as it's GSM -- unlike CDMA-based carriers, you get to put your SIM card in any phone you want instead of having to have your phone activated by the carrier, thus giving them the ability to dictate the phone you have or are allowed to use.

Maybe you can find an older GSM phone that you like.

You can even get month-to-month service and bring your own phone.

That is, unless you're unlucky like I used to be and are stuck with a hearing and that isn't GSM compatible. I'm very glad I switched to one that is shielded against the interference that GSM radios produce.

There might be another option:
Verizon is pretty good about letting you change your equipment online. That is, you can activate a "new" phone through their web site -- using its EIN info.

You might be able to do this -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL WORK --
Get a new phone (ask a friend for an old Verizon phone -- you only need to borrow it for a little while) and activate that (actually, I know that part will work, I've done it several times). You could activate online, by phone, or in a store, doesn't matter.

After they verify your account is working and it's all good to go, re-activate your old phone using the online form and your EIN data.

The catch is they will almost certainly tell you the same thing, again, but not be very nice about it. But if you really want to try, that's a possible way to do it.

Or just get an iPhone. They're cheaper now. :-) Tell Verizon you think they suck and are moving to AT&T.

@bradg33: While the rest of your post makes sense ... there's no need to call the OP a jackass. There are a lot of people out there with old phones that are perfectly adequate for them. You callin' my mom a jackass?

Verizon should use some of the money from that E911 fee they have been collecting for how many years and just give him a new phone.

@bradg33: Oh yes, it makes PERFECT sense to tell a loyal customer that completed his contract and stayed a customer anyway that you don't want his business because he doesn't have a contract.

Technically your post is correct, but given how important churn is to cell providers (and the stock prices of cell providers) it makes poor business sense.

I don't see anywhere on the OP that she said she didn't want a new GPS phone. It just said she thought the CSR was trying to sell her one and get her into a new two year contract. If she doesn't mind the GPS (and my GPS enabled cell phone has a GPS-off feature, a Verizon Razr) she can find one for cheap on the internet and upgrade to it. You can disable the E911 and move to "traditional" 911 using the menu in the cell phone.

This way, she keeps her current plan, doesn't get into a new contract, and will pay minimal for a cell phone that will meet Verizon's standard.

George!

not sure if this answer has been given:

You obviously don't care about having the latest and greated phone. buy a phone off of ebay, and SWITCH THE ESN. This will allow you to use their service but NOT start a contract. Do it online at www.verizonwireless.com.

I just bought a Motorola v65s off ebay and switch between that and my Treo 700w frequently.

Check out www.howardforums.com for more detailed instructions and post questions. People there are helpful.

@ ANTEDILUVIAN

I'll do you one better, get that old Verizon cellphone from that buddy with the GPS, activate it with your sim card and fill out the forms. Then put the sim card back into your old phone without saying anything. Its kinda like fraud, but your method might not go so far without fraud, so the risk of getting caught is extremely low but theres always that small chance.

@darkclawsofchaos:

Verizon is a CDMA network. There is no SIM.

I can see why the person doesn't want to give up the phone. I had a similar model myself with Verizon six or seven years ago and it was a nice solid little phone.

@darkclawsofchaos:
[blackadder]
A very cunning plan indeed.
Except for one minor detail, Baldrick.
[/blackadder]

Verizon doesn't use SIM cards. They're CDMA phones, not GSM phones.

It's not that the suggestion I offered is fraud -- nor would there be any in your plan either (were it possible to use SIM card -enabled phones on Verizon's network) -- it's just that Verizon might say we already warned you once and you blew it, and take away George's account & number.

@Antediluvian:
This will not work.

I used to do customer service for Verizon (outsourced) back in 2003/4. While I was there, they put a block in the system to prevent you from activating any phone that doesnt support the E911 GPS. You cannot do it online, resellers cannot do it, and customer service cannot do it. The system rejects it.

@Ickypoopy: I thought that might be the case. I wasn't sure how much info the EIN provides or whether there's a database they check against for features.

I just couldn't test my theory because I dumped my Verizon service for AT&T and an iPhone. :-)

I had a particular model Audiovox phone that was installed in all of our fleet vehicles. The handset was nothing special, but the hands-free kit was incredible. Coffee spilling moron phone in backwards monkey proof, a fleet supervisor's (me) dream. When the (non-gps) handsets started dying, I found out that Verizon WILL NOT bend on this one, and I actually had a rather helpful business account rep at the time. Ended up installing all new handsets and hands-free kits.

Oh and analog cell phone (AMPS) service is being shutdown in February. The year after you can look forward to your antenna sourced TV's to stop functioning when analog TV broadcasts shutdown in favor of ATSC.

@Petrarch1603: yeah, I remember the Snopes-esque white pregnant lady locked in the truck of her own car by black (and Latino!) carjackers they trotted out to terrify Joe Citizen into pushing for this "service".

Wanna bet it's the NSA and other three-letter agencies (illegally) spying on innocent citizens that are the ones really pushing this?

Somehow, civilization managed to survive without being on the grid, locatable to within 20' by the gov't. Think ours could survive too. Sure is handy for our internal security forces, though, isn't it?

Hey, any hacker-types know how to nuke GSM permanently on the new phones? Smash a chip or something?

@trai_dep:

Nuke GSM permanently? Or do you mean GPS?

@chili_dog: Yes, use pay phones instead! Now if you can only find one...

Like 8-track tapes and records, times and trends change with technology. Cell phones are killing the pay phone industry.

At least you get to keep the number you've been lugging around on that phone for the past 6 years.

Well, there's a misunderstanding about GPS technology. First, the satellites cannot track your phones even if the latter are GPS-enabled. What the satellites do is to transmit a signal continuously. Your phone receives the signals from a few satellites, and calculate your current position based on that.

Now, the real danger to privacy may be if your phone is programmed to upload this information via the cell phone network.

Then again, your phone needs to transmit data to the cell phone network in order to work (i.e. make calls), so you can't have it safer with an ordinary phone versus a GPS phone. If you don't want to be traced, you wouldn't want to have a cell phone. It is traceable.

@JustAGuy2: Sorry. GPS. Is there any way to disable GPS in the new phones, preferably w/o resorting to soldering irons.

@trai_dep: Pull the battery(ies) out if you do not want to be tracked - though no incoming calls is the trade off.

If you want to turn off GPS (the 2nd GPS unit in a phone is the one you are after - there generally are two per phone) you can change the IP address to something nonsensical. That is semi permanent for various reasons.

The true permanent method would be to take out the chip - de-pin or de-solder. But I bet the telco is not going to like it if they find out.

The other sad part of the story is that, at least last I looked, very few localities actually had the equipment to *receive* the E911 info. Here in Boston, cell calls still go to the staties who then have to refer you to the appropriate local police.

The way I see it is, Verizon needs to stay within the law, whether they really want to or not. In the cases mentioned though, Verizon should offer the discount phone without the user being required to sign a contract, since they are unable to keep that handset on. However using "verizon cell phone" will net many compatible phones for the cheap, and you can just activate that new phone to your current number.

This one really isn't Verizon's fault. They didn't want to implement E911 (it's cost them quite a bit of money), but the FCC made them do so, and is now going to fine them if they don't get people like George off non-GPS phones.

@Jay Levitt:
Disclaimer: I work for a company that does networked based cell phone location solutions for some other cellphone networks in the US. I am not making the following statements as an official representative of the company I work for. I am fairly low on the totem pole of the corporate hierarchy. If you manage to figure out what company I work for, do not take my comments as any sort of absolute truth as my comments are as I understand things to be. I could be wrong about one or more things.

I'm assuming that's for Verizon. I'm pretty sure we cover the Boston area (there's a big map of MA with our accuracy on it down the hall - most of it in our the surveyed area is red or purple, which is high accuracy). No cell phone company should be THAT bad when it comes to routing 911 calls. At the very least, they know the cell phone tower the call is being serviced at, and should be able to route the call to the 911 center that tower is served by (basic phase I e911 stuff).

Nice to see that the FCC is pushing the fines. We've been complaining about it for a long time, because well, more fines means more focus on location solutions, means more business for my company :). It's not just Verizon that is failing to meet the requirements, other major companies are as well. Not for lack of technology.

The problem is that neither a network or handset based solution work perfectly well. Handset based solutions rely on GPS, which doesn't work indoors and works poorly in areas without a clear view of the sky (i.e. dense urban areas). Network based solutions work indoors and work very well in dense urban areas. But the accuracy drops significantly in rural areas.

Those that are worried about GPS - if the government really wanted to track you, they would have required network based solutions, where the location can be performed entirely passively and as long as you have your phone on, you can be located.

@Yankees368: I would go prepaid before I signed a cellphone contract. No thanks!

@beyond: Problem is that in the States, prepaid customers are treated as second-class. Try to get a decent data package on a prepaid plan. Not really happening. I really feel that the US should learn from China on this one- prepaid customers should be treated the same as postpaid customers, and given the same extras and service packages.

It sucks that you're forced to buy a new phone, but it could save your life of the life of a loved one. How is that not worth it?

@nullstrike... Won't work. Even if you "turn off" GPS in your phone, that just turns off location for certain purposes. It will still calculate your location and transmit that if you call 911.

@bonzombiekitty... "more fines means more focus on location solutions, means more business for my company." Sadly, that appears to be the way that public policy was set -- notwithstanding the science, the vendors of location-based technology pushed higher accuracy for commercial reasons. And, "not for lack of technology?" BS. GPS is limited by satellite views. Network based is constrained by a lack of cell towers in the majority of the geographic area of the county, and the fact that there are limitations, dictated by physics, due to the bandwidth of the sync signals used for TDOA, and that bandwidth isn't available from GSM systems.

I'll also bet you dollars to donuts that the reason 911 is routed to staties in Boston isn't because of a carrier problem, but more likely due to the requests of local authorities. Quite possible that only the staties have the software to handle location.

@Thud: "BS. GPS is limited by satellite views. Network based is constrained by a lack of cell towers in the majority of the geographic area of the county, and the fact that there are limitations, dictated by physics, due to the bandwidth of the sync signals used for TDOA, and that bandwidth isn't available from GSM systems."

But you are ignoring combined systems, which is supposedly what various companies are starting to investigate. Plus additional technology like AOA (angle of arrival). Expensive? Yes. But combine GPS and UTDOA and you have a system that can locate you in most instances. And my company has no problem performing accurate locations for GSM signals, we've been doing it for a while now. My understanding of how our system works, there is no signals being sent to the device for synchronization, it's all passive. It works roughly like this:

-Location request received and sent to towers.
-Equipment listens for signals coming from the specific cellphone - records it if received and the time it got it at.
-Information is sent to a server that compares the signals that have been recorded at the different towers and performs a TDOA location off of it. Additional calculations are made to take into account things like terrain.

I'm not aware of any limits on our system in regards to bandwidth on the signal between the tower and the cell phone. As far as I'm aware we don't care all that much about it (granted, we need to know how to pick out the correct signal). Our bottleneck is in our own system.

Just to edit my first post - I misread what Jay said, I thought he said "states" - meaning that it goes to wherever the phone was registered (based off the area code and such). So yeah, directing to the state police makes a bit more sense. But theoretically, it should work the same as dialing 911 on a land line.