Vermont Finally Getting The iPhone

Edward Kirk · August 6th, 2008, 12:09 PM

There has been a lot of news about the iPhone being announced in this country or that country, but there's a region in our own backyard that will be getting the iPhone very soon for the first time: the state of Vermont. I know what you're thinking, and yes, Vermont is part of the US, and the iPhone has technically been "launched" there already, but currently there isn't a single AT&T cell tower in the whole state, making it ~~the only state~~ one of the few states without direct access to the iPhone.

Fortunately for those Vermonters, the merger between it's two current carriers, Verizon and Unicel, is resulting in AT&T being awarder overlapping service areas there to prevent a monopoly in the state. That means that people will be able to legitimately be able to buy and use their iPhones (now iPhone 3Gs) there without having to unlock them.

[via WCAX]

**regardless starr** - August 6th, 2008, 01:32 PM #2

I drove from very upstate NY to southern NH yesterday with at least 150 miles of driving in Vermont and my iphone worked fine. So... I'm not sure how accurate this post is.

Stephen007 · August 6th, 2008, 03:40 PM #3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I drove from very upstate NY to southern NH yesterday with at least 150 miles of driving in Vermont and my iphone worked fine. So... I'm not sure how accurate this post is.

I was questioning this too. Your iPhone would still work in Vermont... you'd just be on someone else's towers. Not every tower you connect to has to be owned by AT&T to use it. They would *prefer* if you were on their or their partners' tower because the cost to them would be lower though.

Edward Kirk · August 6th, 2008, 05:19 PM #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I drove from very upstate NY to southern NH yesterday with at least 150 miles of driving in Vermont and my iphone worked fine. [...]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen007

I was questioning this too. Your iPhone would still work in Vermont... you'd just be on someone else's towers. [...]

Well, regardless, for one reason or another, the iPhone has not been officially supported in Vermont (or something, idk), so I guess this is a big deal for them. If anyone living in Vermont could clarify, it would be appreciated...

xxx · August 6th, 2008, 05:35 PM #5

poor Vermont, Always one step behind. At least they have good beer and ice cream!

August 6th, 2008, 06:53 PM

The situation is this: AT&T doesn't currently provide any of their own network coverage in Vermont, however RCC (Unicel, the company acquired by Verizon) does operate a GSM network. This allows AT&T customers to get service while traveling in Vermont.

Vermonters on the other hand are not allowed to sign up for AT&T service as we would most likely use the vast majority of our minutes on a "roaming" network, which obviously costs AT&T more money than using their own network.

Verizon's purchase of RCC means that Verizon would operate an effective monopoly in Vermont. Because of this they are being forced to divest themselves of RCC's physical network assets, which are being sold to AT&T (I should point out here that RCC's network covers a number of other states where Verizon is retaining the network assets of RCC). This means that in effect Verizon has purchased RCC's customer base in Vermont, and AT&T has purchased their network infrastructure. Now that AT&T operates it's own network in Vermont us Vermonters should soon be able to purchase iPhones.

On a personal note this works out WONDERFULLY for me as I am currently a RCC customer who would be forced, no matter what, to buy a new phone. I'd have to buy a new phone from Verizon as my current phone is a GSM phone and won't work on their CDMA network, they'd most likely take the opportunity to lock me in to a new contract. However now I'll be able to simply buy the phone I actually want from AT&T.

August 6th, 2008, 07:08 PM

There are no service plans for AT&T in Montana. We utilize the network of Chinook Wireless, a Montana cell provider. Many of us use the original iPhone with billing addresses outside the state. Of course, we then have a new cell number and can't port our old numbers to the new number because the old numbers reside in Montana, a state without AT&T service plans. 3G has really slowed the import of iPhones into Montana because we don't have access to an Apple Store or an AT&T store for authorization of the iPhones. We wait for AT&T while watching the rest of the world and remote countries, like Romania, get access to the 3G iPhone.

August 6th, 2008, 08:48 PM #8

Vermont is far from the last state to get service for the iPhone from AT&T. Montana and the Dakotas are part of the no-service club too.

I currently live at the edge of AT&T's service area in southeastern South Dakota but am refused service due to my address. If I lived (or had a postal address) in the next town south of where I live I could easily get an iPhone with AT&T.

Rather than wait for AT&T to expand its range further into South Dakota, I'm simply getting an iPhone 2G, unlocking it and using my local GSM service provider Long Lines so I can keep my local number.

Edward Kirk · August 6th, 2008, 10:07 PM #9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

[...]I currently live at the edge of AT&T's service area in southeastern South Dakota but am refused service due to my address. If I lived (or had a postal address) in the next town south of where I live I could easily get an iPhone with AT&T.[...]

I figured as much, but I'm a little surprised that Apple even sold me an iPhone 3G considering the neighborhood I live in is outside AT&T's range (supposedly we're getting towers soon but I'm not holding my breath).

August 8th, 2008, 04:18 PM #10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I drove from very upstate NY to southern NH yesterday with at least 150 miles of driving in Vermont and my iphone worked fine. So... I'm not sure how accurate this post is.

Yea that is because it uses Unicels towers as roaming, But they are going to take over unicels towers, so they are technically ATT's.

August 9th, 2008, 08:05 PM #11

I was just reading that Verizon, the dominant carrier for the Dakotas, is volunteering to divest itself from North and South Dakota along with over eighty other markets around the country to satisfy antitrust regulations for the Department of Justice as it works to purchase Alltel.

This could leave the state and other markets open to another carrier such as AT&T. That would bring the iPhone to a larger geographical area and more rural markets like the Dakotas.

The news story was here: http://tinyurl.com/6b94x8

Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Vermonter explains it all. - August 6th, 2008, 06:53 PM #6
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	The situation is this: AT&T doesn't currently provide any of their own network coverage in Vermont, however RCC (Unicel, the company acquired by Verizon) does operate a GSM network. This allows AT&T customers to get service while traveling in Vermont. Vermonters on the other hand are not allowed to sign up for AT&T service as we would most likely use the vast majority of our minutes on a "roaming" network, which obviously costs AT&T more money than using their own network. Verizon's purchase of RCC means that Verizon would operate an effective monopoly in Vermont. Because of this they are being forced to divest themselves of RCC's physical network assets, which are being sold to AT&T (I should point out here that RCC's network covers a number of other states where Verizon is retaining the network assets of RCC). This means that in effect Verizon has purchased RCC's customer base in Vermont, and AT&T has purchased their network infrastructure. Now that AT&T operates it's own network in Vermont us Vermonters should soon be able to purchase iPhones. On a personal note this works out WONDERFULLY for me as I am currently a RCC customer who would be forced, no matter what, to buy a new phone. I'd have to buy a new phone from Verizon as my current phone is a GSM phone and won't work on their CDMA network, they'd most likely take the opportunity to lock me in to a new contract. However now I'll be able to simply buy the phone I actually want from AT&T.

Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Montana Does Not Have AT&T Either - August 6th, 2008, 07:08 PM #7
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	There are no service plans for AT&T in Montana. We utilize the network of Chinook Wireless, a Montana cell provider. Many of us use the original iPhone with billing addresses outside the state. Of course, we then have a new cell number and can't port our old numbers to the new number because the old numbers reside in Montana, a state without AT&T service plans. 3G has really slowed the import of iPhones into Montana because we don't have access to an Apple Store or an AT&T store for authorization of the iPhones. We wait for AT&T while watching the rest of the world and remote countries, like Romania, get access to the 3G iPhone.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Edward Kirk WrAdminterizer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Illinois, USA Posts: 3,088 Thanks: 19 Thanked 26 Times in 25 Posts	Vermont Finally Getting The iPhone - August 6th, 2008, 12:09 PM #1
	<script language="JavaScript" src="http://adserver1.backbeatmedia.com/servlet/ajrotator/13894/222/viewJScript?pool=13886&type=3158&pos=20&zone=5000"></script> There has been a lot of news about the iPhone being announced in this country or that country, but there's a region in our own backyard that will be getting the iPhone very soon for the first time: the state of Vermont. I know what you're thinking, and yes, Vermont is part of the US, and the iPhone has technically been "launched" there already, but currently there isn't a single AT&T cell tower in the whole state, making it ~~the only state~~ one of the few states without direct access to the iPhone. Fortunately for those Vermonters, the merger between it's two current carriers, Verizon and Unicel, is resulting in AT&T being awarder overlapping service areas there to prevent a monopoly in the state. That means that people will be able to legitimately be able to buy and use their iPhones (now iPhone 3Gs) there without having to unlock them. [via WCAX] __________________ About my iPhone: iPhone & Color: iPhone 3G 16GB White iPhone Version: 3.0 Computer & OS: MacBook Pro 15", Mac OS X 10.5.4 Twitter

Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	regardless starr - August 6th, 2008, 01:32 PM #2
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	I drove from very upstate NY to southern NH yesterday with at least 150 miles of driving in Vermont and my iphone worked fine. So... I'm not sure how accurate this post is.

xxx Rocks the Board Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North East Posts: 352 Thanks: 2 Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts	August 6th, 2008, 05:35 PM #5
	poor Vermont, Always one step behind. At least they have good beer and ice cream!

Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	August 6th, 2008, 08:48 PM #8
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Vermont is far from the last state to get service for the iPhone from AT&T. Montana and the Dakotas are part of the no-service club too. I currently live at the edge of AT&T's service area in southeastern South Dakota but am refused service due to my address. If I lived (or had a postal address) in the next town south of where I live I could easily get an iPhone with AT&T. Rather than wait for AT&T to expand its range further into South Dakota, I'm simply getting an iPhone 2G, unlocking it and using my local GSM service provider Long Lines so I can keep my local number.

Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	August 9th, 2008, 08:05 PM #11
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	I was just reading that Verizon, the dominant carrier for the Dakotas, is volunteering to divest itself from North and South Dakota along with over eighty other markets around the country to satisfy antitrust regulations for the Department of Justice as it works to purchase Alltel. This could leave the state and other markets open to another carrier such as AT&T. That would bring the iPhone to a larger geographical area and more rural markets like the Dakotas. The news story was here: http://tinyurl.com/6b94x8