I switched from AT&T to Verizon earlier this year, and although the call quality and online service is better, I have noticed some deficiencies in the service that I would not have expected from the number 1 carrier.
In particular, I do a lot of business with Jersey, in the British Channel Islands. This is not to be confused with the state of New Jersey. Jersey is the largest offshore banking and fund administration center in the world, and is only less known than places like the Caymans because it runs a very clean and transparent operation. After switching to Verizon I discovered that I could send text messages to my client's in Jersey but they could not send text messages back. After numerous support calls I was eventually told that the problem with the Isle of Man was resolved. Duh! The Isle of Man is another U.K. offshore island but its not Jersey. On further discussion with the support group apparently the problem is a lack of partnership arrangement with Jersey Telecom (JT), the principal mobile supplier in Jersey. Verizon has arrangements with Cable and Wireless, and Airtel Vodafone in Jersey, but not JT. I don't know anybody in Jersey that uses C & W or Airtel, and I expect these services are not popular with the business community. I did speak to JT who confirmed the lack of an agreement and mentioned that they had agreements with AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile.
Frankly I'm surprised that Verizon, does not have an arrangement with JT, and yet a minor player like T-Mobile does. The support people didn't even seen to be bothered by this. It was a "we don't have a sharing contract with them, and you can check on our web site to confirm this". I would expect "I'm sorry for such an omission, we will be right on fixing it."
It has made me question whether Verizon is a serious business service or more of a consumer orientated service.
I surely can't be the only Verizon client that needs to receive texts from Jersey!
Please don't make me switch back to AT&T.
Yes, I have been there before and have had issues, but at the time I was with Sprint. Last time I was there was this past Spring and there was *no* messaging support at all for Sprint Customers just a few months ago. So if they confirmed some agreement then it must be recent. Other than that I'll just say if making an agreement with JT would cost VZW international users anymore I would *not* support an agreement because to say Jersey is the "largest offshore banking and fund administration center in the world" is so completely far from reality. I will agree it is the largest one in the Channel Islands, but never close to the rest of the world. With that said: you are probably the only customer that *needs* support for that there, I know I and everyone else would *like* it, but most assuredly very unnecessary esp. considering marginality.
I think you have misunderstood what the problem is. Its not when I travel to Jersey but its when JT clients who live in Jersey try and text me in the U.S.
When I said Jersey is the largest offshore banking and trust center I'm referring to the amount of this type of business that is conducted, not the actually size of the place. I'm curious what you think is larger. Perhaps you are thinking of Hong Kong, but most of Hong Kong's trade is not in offshore banking and trust services.
Its hard to imagine that signing a two way contract would increase cost to subscribers, and if this was the case then you certainly would not want Verizon paying for contracts with minor players on Jersey.
No I understood your problem, it is just that the only time I would text with partners it generally is when I actually there, everything while absent from the area I generally use Voice and E-mail for a bit more harder record keeping.
For VZW the best option for negotiating a contract that I would definitely back and support would be a JT client side pro rata surcharge if it would be necessary. The direct cost to VZW is not what I am concern with, but the cost JT might want to throw onto VZW for a contract.
Now to the more fun question at hand... I love teaching economics and I have mulled over those numbers dealing with the banking and trust industries in the recent past, and you are absolutely correct Hong Kong could never count. Hong Kong facilitates oversight of a great deal of activities, but no one [with any sense] would ever open shop there to actually do this work. I do think however with CIMA's reforms with the 2Gen Basel regs. Cayman Islands have most definitely cleaned a great deal of their dirty work up & their antics [not to say it does not exist everywhere including Jersey, but...] and they stand to be the largest in terms of pure monetary figures. However, that cannot be said without acknowledging that some of the backing servs. comes from the 'traditional' offshore islands. [and I would have not clue exactly what the size of the place is vs. others]