1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

Coverage Maps and the CTIA Code

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Kevin Bush, Sep 16, 2003.

  1. Kevin Bush

    Kevin Bush Guest

    The CTIA Code says that carriers will


    ***
    "make available... maps depicting approximate voice service coverage
    applicable to each of their rate plans currently offered... All such
    maps will contain an appropriate legend concerning limitations and/or
    variations in wireless coverage and map usage, including any geographic
    limitations on the availability of any services included in the rate
    plan...

    Carriers will periodically update such maps as necessary to keep them
    reasonably current. If necessary to show the extent of service coverage
    available to customers from carriers' roaming partners, carreirs will
    request and incorporate coverage maps from roaming partners..."
    ***

    All of this shows that the folks who wrote the code are well aware that
    maps cannot, and never will, provide a complete and accurate depiction
    of coverage. Just look at the hedging and qualification: "approximate
    voice service coverage," and "an appropriate legend concerning
    limitations..."

    The maps currently on Verizon's website comply with what the Code calls
    for. They provide a reasonable approximation of the coverage area (where
    the phone will work) and they provide a reasonable picture of where the
    network rate plan is available (where the phone will work without roam
    charges).

    Verizon's map has always had a "legend" explaining the limitations and
    variations of wireless service. The current legend for America's Choice
    says:

    ***
    "This map is not a guarantee of coverage and contains areas with no
    service.

    This map shows approximately where rates and coverage apply based on our
    internal data. Wireless service is subject to network and transmission
    limitations, including cell site unavailability, particularly near
    boundaries and in remote areas..."
    ***

    Verizon is in compliance with the CTIA Code. What you folks are looking
    for will never be available, because it isn't realistic.

    If a "dead spot" is discovered in a particular area in downtown Denver
    that is about one square mile, how do you expect to find that on a map?
    Do you really want carriers to have the expense of producing a map with
    that level of detail for every major city? Or wait, maybe to comply with
    your requirements, they would have to produce a map of every town, no
    matter how small... What about cornfields? Do you want a map of every
    square inch?

    Alford Korzybski said, "A map is not the territory it represents, but if
    correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for
    its usefulness".

    Even if carriers actually tried to provide the level of detail you guys
    think they should, the maps themselves would be obsolete by the time
    they reached the public. Coverage changes. And that's not going to
    change.

    [Yes, I work for VZW.]



    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     



    › See More: Coverage Maps and the CTIA Code
  2. cell play

    cell play Guest

    kbush@bogus.net (Kevin Bush) wrote in article
    <vmf3b0bfa1n136@corp.supernews.com>:
    > The CTIA Code says that carriers will
    >
    >
    > ***
    > "make available... maps depicting approximate voice service coverage
    > applicable to each of their rate plans currently offered... All such
    > maps will contain an appropriate legend concerning limitations and/or
    > variations in wireless coverage and map usage, including any geographic
    > limitations on the availability of any services included in the rate
    > plan...
    >
    > Carriers will periodically update such maps as necessary to keep them
    > reasonably current. If necessary to show the extent of service coverage
    > available to customers from carriers' roaming partners, carreirs will
    > request and incorporate coverage maps from roaming partners..."
    > ***
    >
    > All of this shows that the folks who wrote the code are well aware that
    > maps cannot, and never will, provide a complete and accurate depiction
    > of coverage. Just look at the hedging and qualification: "approximate
    > voice service coverage," and "an appropriate legend concerning
    > limitations..."
    >
    > The maps currently on Verizon's website comply with what the Code calls
    > for. They provide a reasonable approximation of the coverage area (where
    > the phone will work) and they provide a reasonable picture of where the
    > network rate plan is available (where the phone will work without roam
    > charges).
    >
    > Verizon's map has always had a "legend" explaining the limitations and
    > variations of wireless service. The current legend for America's Choice
    > says:
    >
    > ***
    > "This map is not a guarantee of coverage and contains areas with no
    > service.
    >
    > This map shows approximately where rates and coverage apply based on our
    > internal data. Wireless service is subject to network and transmission
    > limitations, including cell site unavailability, particularly near
    > boundaries and in remote areas..."
    > ***
    >
    > Verizon is in compliance with the CTIA Code. What you folks are looking
    > for will never be available, because it isn't realistic.
    >
    > If a "dead spot" is discovered in a particular area in downtown Denver
    > that is about one square mile, how do you expect to find that on a map?
    > Do you really want carriers to have the expense of producing a map with
    > that level of detail for every major city? Or wait, maybe to comply with
    > your requirements, they would have to produce a map of every town, no
    > matter how small... What about cornfields? Do you want a map of every
    > square inch?
    >
    > Alford Korzybski said, "A map is not the territory it represents, but if
    > correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for
    > its usefulness".
    >
    > Even if carriers actually tried to provide the level of detail you guys
    > think they should, the maps themselves would be obsolete by the time
    > they reached the public. Coverage changes. And that's not going to
    > change.
    >
    > [Yes, I work for VZW.]
    >


    BRAVO BRAVO.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  3. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:23:28 -0000, kbush@bogus.net (Kevin Bush)
    wrote:

    >
    >If a "dead spot" is discovered in a particular area in downtown Denver
    >that is about one square mile, how do you expect to find that on a map?
    >Do you really want carriers to have the expense of producing a map with
    >that level of detail for every major city? Or wait, maybe to comply with
    >your requirements, they would have to produce a map of every town, no
    >matter how small... What about cornfields? Do you want a map of every
    >square inch?


    Yo, Kevin! That map for EVERY tower on EVERY system already exists!
    It was submitted to the FCC with the bogus licensee's application!
    They won't have to draw a single one....The topographical coverage
    software every one of them has HAS ALREADY DRAWN IT! Each transmitter
    has one, calibrated in several microvolts/meter calibrations to
    satisfy FCC rules.

    My buddy has a little paging company on 152/462/900 Mhz. EVERY
    transmitter he owns has a full coverage map he paid big money to have
    produced required by the FCC application for service.

    They already HAVE the maps you speak of.....all we need now is a
    public FTP server so we can download them at zero cost to the company
    flacks.
    >
    >Alford Korzybski said, "A map is not the territory it represents, but if
    >correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for
    >its usefulness".
    >
    >Even if carriers actually tried to provide the level of detail you guys
    >think they should, the maps themselves would be obsolete by the time
    >they reached the public. Coverage changes. And that's not going to
    >change.
    >
    >[Yes, I work for VZW.]
    >

    Absolutely right! Every time they move the antennas, change the
    transmitters, etc., a new map is created to file with their FCC
    license modification for that transmitter. All they gotta do is
    update the FTP server database so we can download it....(c;

    Next excuse...........



    Larry W4CSC

    3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
    gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
    conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?
     
  4. Larry W4CSC wrote:
    > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:23:28 -0000, kbush@bogus.net (Kevin Bush)
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>If a "dead spot" is discovered in a particular area in downtown Denver
    >>that is about one square mile, how do you expect to find that on a map?
    >>Do you really want carriers to have the expense of producing a map with
    >>that level of detail for every major city? Or wait, maybe to comply with
    >>your requirements, they would have to produce a map of every town, no
    >>matter how small... What about cornfields? Do you want a map of every
    >>square inch?

    >
    >
    > Yo, Kevin! That map for EVERY tower on EVERY system already exists!
    > It was submitted to the FCC with the bogus licensee's application!
    > They won't have to draw a single one....The topographical coverage
    > software every one of them has HAS ALREADY DRAWN IT! Each transmitter
    > has one, calibrated in several microvolts/meter calibrations to
    > satisfy FCC rules.
    >
    > My buddy has a little paging company on 152/462/900 Mhz. EVERY
    > transmitter he owns has a full coverage map he paid big money to have
    > produced required by the FCC application for service.
    >
    > They already HAVE the maps you speak of.....all we need now is a
    > public FTP server so we can download them at zero cost to the company
    > flacks.
    >
    >>Alford Korzybski said, "A map is not the territory it represents, but if
    >>correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for
    >>its usefulness".
    >>
    >>Even if carriers actually tried to provide the level of detail you guys
    >>think they should, the maps themselves would be obsolete by the time
    >>they reached the public. Coverage changes. And that's not going to
    >>change.
    >>
    >>[Yes, I work for VZW.]
    >>

    >
    > Absolutely right! Every time they move the antennas, change the
    > transmitters, etc., a new map is created to file with their FCC
    > license modification for that transmitter. All they gotta do is
    > update the FTP server database so we can download it....(c;
    >
    > Next excuse...........
    >
    >
    >
    > Larry W4CSC
    >
    > 3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
    > gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
    > conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?

    Nice post, Larry
     
  5. Dave Markson

    Dave Markson Guest

    >Yo, Kevin! That map for EVERY tower on EVERY system already exists!
    >It was submitted to the FCC with the bogus licensee's application!
    >They won't have to draw a single one....The topographical coverage
    >software every one of them has HAS ALREADY DRAWN IT! Each transmitter
    >has one, calibrated in several microvolts/meter calibrations to
    >satisfy FCC rules.


    Having seen Sprint PCS and Nextel "internal maps", they are very detailed and
    dead spots are very well documented. I actually took a Nextel phone and went
    around checking how close the maps were to real coverage, and guess what? They
    were right on the money!

    The carriers have exactly what we want for coverage maps, they just won't post
    them for us to see.

    --
    Dave
    Visit my New England Cell Phone Page at
    http://markson.net/cell_phones.htm
    (to reply take out the "remove" in my e-mail)
     
  6. Male Bomb

    Male Bomb Guest


    > Having seen Sprint PCS and Nextel "internal maps", they are very detailed and
    > dead spots are very well documented. I actually took a Nextel phone and went
    > around checking how close the maps were to real coverage, and guess what? They
    > were right on the money!
    >
    > The carriers have exactly what we want for coverage maps, they just won't post
    > them for us to see.


    Of course they do, do you guys really think these billion dollar
    companies are throwing darts at maps when deciding on new cell cites? MB



    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  7. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:50:09 GMT, Dave Markson
    <dave@markson.remove.net> wrote:

    >
    >Having seen Sprint PCS and Nextel "internal maps", they are very detailed and
    >dead spots are very well documented. I actually took a Nextel phone and went
    >around checking how close the maps were to real coverage, and guess what? They
    >were right on the money!
    >
    >The carriers have exactly what we want for coverage maps, they just won't post
    >them for us to see.
    >

    Absolutely. It's all about Marketing and Churning.....

    If you can't, or won't, provide great service.....Lock 'em into long
    contracts so you can keep em paying while you tell 'em to go to hell.



    Larry W4CSC

    3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
    gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
    conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?
     
  8. William Bray

    William Bray Guest

    Congrats on your job. Does VZW include all AMPS coverage areas on an
    extended service map? Do their maps show where you are roaming? There
    are a lot of details and vital information I can't seem to find in an
    honest VZW coverage map. I expect more honesty than just a map that
    says: "Can You Hear Me Now?"

    kbush@bogus.net (Kevin Bush) wrote in article
    <vmf3b0bfa1n136@corp.supernews.com>:
    > The CTIA Code says that carriers will
    >
    >
    > ***
    > "make available... maps depicting approximate voice service coverage
    > applicable to each of their rate plans currently offered... All such
    > maps will contain an appropriate legend concerning limitations and/or
    > variations in wireless coverage and map usage, including any geographic
    > limitations on the availability of any services included in the rate
    > plan...
    >
    > Carriers will periodically update such maps as necessary to keep them
    > reasonably current. If necessary to show the extent of service coverage
    > available to customers from carriers' roaming partners, carreirs will
    > request and incorporate coverage maps from roaming partners..."
    > ***
    >
    > All of this shows that the folks who wrote the code are well aware that
    > maps cannot, and never will, provide a complete and accurate depiction
    > of coverage. Just look at the hedging and qualification: "approximate
    > voice service coverage," and "an appropriate legend concerning
    > limitations..."
    >
    > The maps currently on Verizon's website comply with what the Code calls
    > for. They provide a reasonable approximation of the coverage area (where
    > the phone will work) and they provide a reasonable picture of where the
    > network rate plan is available (where the phone will work without roam
    > charges).
    >
    > Verizon's map has always had a "legend" explaining the limitations and
    > variations of wireless service. The current legend for America's Choice
    > says:
    >
    > ***
    > "This map is not a guarantee of coverage and contains areas with no
    > service.
    >
    > This map shows approximately where rates and coverage apply based on our
    > internal data. Wireless service is subject to network and transmission
    > limitations, including cell site unavailability, particularly near
    > boundaries and in remote areas..."
    > ***
    >
    > Verizon is in compliance with the CTIA Code. What you folks are looking
    > for will never be available, because it isn't realistic.
    >
    > If a "dead spot" is discovered in a particular area in downtown Denver
    > that is about one square mile, how do you expect to find that on a map?
    > Do you really want carriers to have the expense of producing a map with
    > that level of detail for every major city? Or wait, maybe to comply with
    > your requirements, they would have to produce a map of every town, no
    > matter how small... What about cornfields? Do you want a map of every
    > square inch?
    >
    > Alford Korzybski said, "A map is not the territory it represents, but if
    > correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for
    > its usefulness".
    >
    > Even if carriers actually tried to provide the level of detail you guys
    > think they should, the maps themselves would be obsolete by the time
    > they reached the public. Coverage changes. And that's not going to
    > change.
    >
    > [Yes, I work for VZW.]
    >
    >
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  9. William Bray wrote:
    > Congrats on your job. Does VZW include all AMPS coverage areas on an
    > extended service map? Do their maps show where you are roaming? There
    > are a lot of details and vital information I can't seem to find in an
    > honest VZW coverage map. I expect more honesty than just a map that
    > says: "Can You Hear Me Now?"
    >


    Could it be that Verizon may hesitate because it would force them to
    show just how small various parts of their network (data, digital)
    really are?
     
  10. Male Bomb

    Male Bomb Guest

    > >
    > Absolutely. It's all about Marketing and Churning.....
    >
    > If you can't, or won't, provide great service.....Lock 'em into long
    > contracts so you can keep em paying while you tell 'em to go to hell.


    Funny thing is you have no contract but you keep chiming in on this
    topic... SO is Alltell ready to port your # Larry? LOL
    Your friend MB


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  11. Mike Gorman

    Mike Gorman Guest

    Larry W4CSC wrote:
    > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:23:28 -0000, kbush@bogus.net (Kevin Bush)
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>If a "dead spot" is discovered in a particular area in downtown Denver
    >>that is about one square mile, how do you expect to find that on a map?
    >>Do you really want carriers to have the expense of producing a map with
    >>that level of detail for every major city? Or wait, maybe to comply with
    >>your requirements, they would have to produce a map of every town, no
    >>matter how small... What about cornfields? Do you want a map of every
    >>square inch?

    >
    >
    > Yo, Kevin! That map for EVERY tower on EVERY system already exists!
    > It was submitted to the FCC with the bogus licensee's application!
    > They won't have to draw a single one....The topographical coverage
    > software every one of them has HAS ALREADY DRAWN IT! Each transmitter
    > has one, calibrated in several microvolts/meter calibrations to
    > satisfy FCC rules.
    >
    > My buddy has a little paging company on 152/462/900 Mhz. EVERY
    > transmitter he owns has a full coverage map he paid big money to have
    > produced required by the FCC application for service.
    >
    > They already HAVE the maps you speak of.....all we need now is a
    > public FTP server so we can download them at zero cost to the company
    > flacks.

    The issue is those RF is a dynamic thing, leaves, new buildings, even
    the weather and the cars on the road at a time of day can affect the
    coverage in any one spot. What is true the day the maps are made may
    not be true the next day. The data is only as good as the modeling
    software and terrain/clutter data given it. All those detailed maps are
    are a best guess, a very good guess, but about miles of coverage, not feet.

    No carrier can honestly say what the exact coverage level will be at any
    point at any time, there are way too many variables. That is why the
    code exists the way it does, and that is why the maps are made the way
    they are.

    Mike Gorman
     
  12. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 06:22:30 -0000, malebomb@comcast.net (Male Bomb)
    wrote:

    >
    >Funny thing is you have no contract but you keep chiming in on this
    >topic... SO is Alltell ready to port your # Larry? LOL
    >Your friend MB
    >

    See? Stupid works for Verizon.......



    Larry W4CSC

    3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
    gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
    conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?
     
  13. AL

    AL Guest

    I think I've probably spoken to him lately... Boy Verizon needs a major
    attitude adjustment.

    End of Sept is contract free days.

    AL

    "Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
    news:3f685371.207400199@news.knology.net...
    > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 06:22:30 -0000, malebomb@comcast.net (Male Bomb)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Funny thing is you have no contract but you keep chiming in on this
    > >topic... SO is Alltell ready to port your # Larry? LOL
    > >Your friend MB
    > >

    > See? Stupid works for Verizon.......
    >
    >
    >
    > Larry W4CSC
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?