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

Want to have fun with customer service? Do this!

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

  1. AL

    AL Guest

    I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new 10-point
    consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.

    So I called and asked for one. The rep. said it's in the brochure. I read
    the line of the brochure that says "These maps show approximately where
    rates apply based on our internal data." One brochure says "This rate map
    shows where rates apply and is NOT (their emphasis) a depiction of actual
    service availability or wireless coverage." Its VZW for those interested.

    The rep was speechless. Give them a call and see what happens.
    The bottom line already they are breaking their pledges and this is an
    industry that needs heavy regulation, tracking of dead spots and of
    no-service and other service issues and problems.
    Plus an actual real coverage map would be nice. But I don't think its going
    to happen.
    What was that FCC number again, oh yeah, 1-888-225-5322

    AL
     



    › See More: Want to have fun with customer service? Do this!
  2. "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in message
    news:qFJ9b.379$y63.250@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
    > I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new

    10-point
    > consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    > companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    > where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.
    >
    > So I called and asked for one. The rep. said it's in the brochure. I read
    > the line of the brochure that says "These maps show approximately where
    > rates apply based on our internal data." One brochure says "This rate map
    > shows where rates apply and is NOT (their emphasis) a depiction of actual
    > service availability or wireless coverage." Its VZW for those interested.
    >
    > The rep was speechless. Give them a call and see what happens.
    > The bottom line already they are breaking their pledges and this is an
    > industry that needs heavy regulation, tracking of dead spots and of
    > no-service and other service issues and problems.
    > Plus an actual real coverage map would be nice. But I don't think its

    going
    > to happen.
    > What was that FCC number again, oh yeah, 1-888-225-5322
    >
    > AL


    Those maps are as much an artifact of the advertising department as the
    television commercials or billboards are. They are simply taking real data
    and splashing some pretty red on it to make it more aesthetically appealing.
    :)

    Tom Veldhouse
     
  3. P Howard

    P Howard Guest

    What timeframe did the companies give for having all of their printed
    collateral replaced with all new maps?

    --
    Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user


    "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in article
    <qFJ9b.379$y63.250@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>:
    > I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new 10-point
    > consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    > companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    > where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.
    >
    > So I called and asked for one. The rep. said it's in the brochure. I read
    > the line of the brochure that says "These maps show approximately where
    > rates apply based on our internal data." One brochure says "This rate map
    > shows where rates apply and is NOT (their emphasis) a depiction of actual
    > service availability or wireless coverage." Its VZW for those interested.
    >
    > The rep was speechless. Give them a call and see what happens.
    > The bottom line already they are breaking their pledges and this is an
    > industry that needs heavy regulation, tracking of dead spots and of
    > no-service and other service issues and problems.
    > Plus an actual real coverage map would be nice. But I don't think its going
    > to happen.
    > What was that FCC number again, oh yeah, 1-888-225-5322
    >
    > AL
    >
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  4. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3f676b28$0$152$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
    >
    > "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in message
    > news:qFJ9b.379$y63.250@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
    > > I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new

    > 10-point
    > > consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    > > companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    > > where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.
    > >
    > > So I called and asked for one. The rep. said it's in the brochure. I

    read
    > > the line of the brochure that says "These maps show approximately where
    > > rates apply based on our internal data." One brochure says "This rate

    map
    > > shows where rates apply and is NOT (their emphasis) a depiction of

    actual
    > > service availability or wireless coverage." Its VZW for those

    interested.
    > >
    > > The rep was speechless. Give them a call and see what happens.
    > > The bottom line already they are breaking their pledges and this is an
    > > industry that needs heavy regulation, tracking of dead spots and of
    > > no-service and other service issues and problems.
    > > Plus an actual real coverage map would be nice. But I don't think its

    > going
    > > to happen.
    > > What was that FCC number again, oh yeah, 1-888-225-5322
    > >
    > > AL

    >
    > Those maps are as much an artifact of the advertising department as the
    > television commercials or billboards are. They are simply taking real

    data
    > and splashing some pretty red on it to make it more aesthetically

    appealing.
    > :)
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse



    The shame of it is, many people rely on the maps to get an idea of whether
    or not they will have coverage. There's nothing else to rely on. If you
    ask the person in the store if service is good in a specific part of the
    colored map, you'll probably get a "yes" regardless of the truth. And it's
    not necessarily dishonesty, the sales reps may not even know themselves.
     
  5. Al-

    Your are a complete dip shit. Have you ever realized that your FM/AM
    radio goes out from time to time or there's static....?Or that the
    service is sometimes unreliable and spotty? Depsite any carriers claim
    to have the best network, you should expect the same. Your cell phone
    is a freaking radio.

    So, you expect there to be some magic map, available to all consumers
    that takes into consideration certain things like topography,
    atmospheric conditions, capacity and the like? Give me a break, the
    current maps are a guide and nothing less and you shouldn't need
    anything else.

    You need this type of detailed map, probably to be developed by NASA or
    something, so the carrier can pass additional costs on to the consumer?

    Dip Shit Al, realize this...everytime you call CS for your idiotic
    concerns that generates a cost...A cost that's typically about 5 bucks a
    phone call. Don't you think those costs are passed along somewhere to
    the consumer? Save your useless breath - call customer service when you
    have a real issue. There's going to be dead spots, there's going to be
    dropped calls. If you want reliability stick to your land line or talk
    face face.

    Call the FCC and waste their time and my tax dollars too. I'm sure they
    have more important things to worry about because you can't make phone
    when you're at baseball game to wave at your jackass friend across the
    stadium or to call some and say "guess where I am, I'm at a baseball
    game." Or because your phone won't work while you're standing in line at
    the grocery store trying to make a call while others are waiting for
    your dumb ass to pay attention and pay your bill.

    And then you call for additional regulation? The competitive
    marketplace has done just fine solving these issues themselves. That's
    all we need is more government regulation, more bureaucracy and higher
    costs.

    See the forest from the trees you dip shit.
    --
    The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
    totally amazing.


    "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in article
    <qFJ9b.379$y63.250@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>:
    > I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new 10-point
    > consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    > companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    > where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.
    >
    > So I called and asked for one. The rep. said it's in the brochure. I read
    > the line of the brochure that says "These maps show approximately where
    > rates apply based on our internal data." One brochure says "This rate map
    > shows where rates apply and is NOT (their emphasis) a depiction of actual
    > service availability or wireless coverage." Its VZW for those interested.
    >
    > The rep was speechless. Give them a call and see what happens.
    > The bottom line already they are breaking their pledges and this is an
    > industry that needs heavy regulation, tracking of dead spots and of
    > no-service and other service issues and problems.
    > Plus an actual real coverage map would be nice. But I don't think its going
    > to happen.
    > What was that FCC number again, oh yeah, 1-888-225-5322
    >
    > AL
    >
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  6. mikey

    mikey Guest

    Both of you are amazing.
    Me too... amazingly I read through both of your posts.
    Mike



    "BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
    news:vmern76uau4rc7@corp.supernews.com...
    Al-

    Your are a complete dip shit. Have you ever realized that your FM/AM
    radio goes out from time to time or there's static....?Or that the
    service is sometimes unreliable and spotty? Depsite any carriers claim
    to have the best network, you should expect the same. Your cell phone
    is a freaking radio.

    So, you expect there to be some magic map, available to all consumers
    that takes into consideration certain things like topography,
    atmospheric conditions, capacity and the like? Give me a break, the
    current maps are a guide and nothing less and you shouldn't need
    anything else.

    You need this type of detailed map, probably to be developed by NASA or
    something, so the carrier can pass additional costs on to the consumer?

    Dip Shit Al, realize this...everytime you call CS for your idiotic
    concerns that generates a cost...A cost that's typically about 5 bucks a
    phone call. Don't you think those costs are passed along somewhere to
    the consumer? Save your useless breath - call customer service when you
    have a real issue. There's going to be dead spots, there's going to be
    dropped calls. If you want reliability stick to your land line or talk
    face face.

    Call the FCC and waste their time and my tax dollars too. I'm sure they
    have more important things to worry about because you can't make phone
    when you're at baseball game to wave at your jackass friend across the
    stadium or to call some and say "guess where I am, I'm at a baseball
    game." Or because your phone won't work while you're standing in line at
    the grocery store trying to make a call while others are waiting for
    your dumb ass to pay attention and pay your bill.

    And then you call for additional regulation? The competitive
    marketplace has done just fine solving these issues themselves. That's
    all we need is more government regulation, more bureaucracy and higher
    costs.

    See the forest from the trees you dip shit.
    --
    The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
    totally amazing.


    "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in article
    <qFJ9b.379$y63.250@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>:
    > I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new

    10-point
    > consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    > companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    > where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.
    >
    > So I called and asked for one. The rep. said it's in the brochure. I read
    > the line of the brochure that says "These maps show approximately where
    > rates apply based on our internal data." One brochure says "This rate map
    > shows where rates apply and is NOT (their emphasis) a depiction of actual
    > service availability or wireless coverage." Its VZW for those interested.
    >
    > The rep was speechless. Give them a call and see what happens.
    > The bottom line already they are breaking their pledges and this is an
    > industry that needs heavy regulation, tracking of dead spots and of
    > no-service and other service issues and problems.
    > Plus an actual real coverage map would be nice. But I don't think its

    going
    > to happen.
    > What was that FCC number again, oh yeah, 1-888-225-5322
    >
    > AL
    >
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  7. "BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
    news:vmern76uau4rc7@corp.supernews.com...
    > Al-
    >
    > Your are a complete dip shit. Have you ever realized that your FM/AM
    > radio goes out from time to time or there's static....?Or that the
    > service is sometimes unreliable and spotty? Depsite any carriers claim
    > to have the best network, you should expect the same. Your cell phone
    > is a freaking radio.
    >
    > So, you expect there to be some magic map, available to all consumers
    > that takes into consideration certain things like topography,
    > atmospheric conditions, capacity and the like? Give me a break, the
    > current maps are a guide and nothing less and you shouldn't need
    > anything else.
    >
    > You need this type of detailed map, probably to be developed by NASA or
    > something, so the carrier can pass additional costs on to the consumer?
    >
    > Dip Shit Al, realize this...everytime you call CS for your idiotic
    > concerns that generates a cost...A cost that's typically about 5 bucks a
    > phone call. Don't you think those costs are passed along somewhere to
    > the consumer? Save your useless breath - call customer service when you
    > have a real issue. There's going to be dead spots, there's going to be
    > dropped calls. If you want reliability stick to your land line or talk
    > face face.
    >
    > Call the FCC and waste their time and my tax dollars too. I'm sure they
    > have more important things to worry about because you can't make phone
    > when you're at baseball game to wave at your jackass friend across the
    > stadium or to call some and say "guess where I am, I'm at a baseball
    > game." Or because your phone won't work while you're standing in line at
    > the grocery store trying to make a call while others are waiting for
    > your dumb ass to pay attention and pay your bill.
    >
    > And then you call for additional regulation? The competitive
    > marketplace has done just fine solving these issues themselves. That's
    > all we need is more government regulation, more bureaucracy and higher
    > costs.
    >
    > See the forest from the trees you dip shit.
    > --
    > The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
    > totally amazing.
    >
    >


    Hey buddy, don't be a coward, come one and use your real name.

    For one thing, Al was making an attempt at humor. For another, a rate map
    is not a coverage map. They ARE required by this *code* to offer coverage
    maps. That doesn't mean every square inch of the USA. Assumptions about
    coverage from a tower is probably fine. But a reasonable attempt by listing
    tower locations is certainly in order. This alone would show all the holes
    in the America's choice network (or Sprint's Free & Clear PCS network for
    that fact) that current rate maps show as covered. This also does not
    preclude the carriers from offering rate maps as well (roaming carriers
    obviously would not be on a coverage map for Verizon unless they decided to
    specifically add it).

    Tom Veldhouse
     
  8. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <qFJ9b.379$y63.250@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
    "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote:

    > I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new 10-point
    > consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    > companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    > where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.


    SprintPCS says the following on its website:

    Service area maps approximate our service areas based on
    computer-generated radio-frequency coverage projections and information
    provided by third parties, but are not a guarantee of service
    availability. Actual coverage, quality and availability of coverage may
    vary based on network problems, signal strength, your equipment,
    terrain, weather and other limitations or conditions. Planned service
    areas are subject to change. Local service in some areas is managed and
    provided under contract with Sprint by independent Affiliates.



    An argument could be made that it is at variance with the new industry
    code.
     
  9. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <vmern76uau4rc7@corp.supernews.com>,
    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:

    > So, you expect there to be some magic map, available to all consumers
    > that takes into consideration certain things like topography,
    > atmospheric conditions, capacity and the like? Give me a break, the
    > current maps are a guide and nothing less and you shouldn't need
    > anything else.



    I think customers expect a map that the industry code says the companies
    will provide, and there are ample posts here to show that the real world
    is often widely at variance with the published maps, and hence was the
    reason for the new industry code, which SprintPCS has yet to catch up to.
     
  10. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "PHil_Real" <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in message
    news:phil_tape-0CB068.15205016092003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <qFJ9b.379$y63.250@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
    > "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote:
    >
    > > I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new

    10-point
    > > consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    > > companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    > > where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.

    >
    > SprintPCS says the following on its website:
    >
    > Service area maps approximate our service areas based on
    > computer-generated radio-frequency coverage projections and information
    > provided by third parties, but are not a guarantee of service
    > availability. Actual coverage, quality and availability of coverage may
    > vary based on network problems, signal strength, your equipment,
    > terrain, weather and other limitations or conditions. Planned service
    > areas are subject to change. Local service in some areas is managed and
    > provided under contract with Sprint by independent Affiliates.
    >
    >
    >
    > An argument could be made that it is at variance with the new industry
    > code.


    And thus the 14 day return policy. Buy it and try it. It's great. The
    only trouble is, and the maps don't help, but when service or coverage
    changes for the worse in a given area.
     
  11. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <011797f3405a6b105f702178d809778a@news.teranews.com>,
    "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote:

    > The shame of it is, many people rely on the maps to get an idea of whether
    > or not they will have coverage. There's nothing else to rely on. If you
    > ask the person in the store if service is good in a specific part of the
    > colored map, you'll probably get a "yes" regardless of the truth. And it's
    > not necessarily dishonesty, the sales reps may not even know themselves.


    Sales reps are there to make sales. Likely any rep for any carrier will
    volunteer there is good coverage in any area you ask about.
     
  12. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <3f676b28$0$152$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Those maps are as much an artifact of the advertising department as the
    > television commercials or billboards are. They are simply taking real data
    > and splashing some pretty red on it to make it more aesthetically appealing.
    > :)
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse


    Marketing Department that is. Take a minimum of data, and a maximum of
    extrapolation?? However Sprint brags about being AWARDED as a
    Particpant in the new industry code, and yet doesn't follow it or give a
    reason or timetable for when new maps should be expected.
     
  13. You show a lack of industry understanding...I work in the industry for a
    major, undisclosed, player. I'm not in customer service, sales or
    network and I'm not some 25K a year employee.

    Do you realize how often the type of collateral (i.e. tower locations)
    would change for any given carrier? Shit, it's hard enough to get an
    accurate and up to date list INTERNALLY, let alone one that's accurate
    for the general public.

    I can just anticipate the law suits from ambulance chasers because the
    map they have isn't "accurate" or was "misleading."

    Johnny Cocharn anyone? "If it don't complete it's obsolete..."

    All Networks have holes. Deal with it. That's why reputable carriers
    have things like return policies so you can use the phone in locations
    that you would typically use it, like work, home or your commute, to
    determine if it suits your needs.

    If you really have to have tower location information, go to the
    following site:

    http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistrationSearch.jsp





    --
    The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
    totally amazing.


    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in article
    <3f67709c$0$154$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>:
    >
    > "BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
    > news:vmern76uau4rc7@corp.supernews.com...
    > > Al-
    > >
    > > Your are a complete dip shit. Have you ever realized that your FM/AM
    > > radio goes out from time to time or there's static....?Or that the
    > > service is sometimes unreliable and spotty? Depsite any carriers claim
    > > to have the best network, you should expect the same. Your cell phone
    > > is a freaking radio.
    > >
    > > So, you expect there to be some magic map, available to all consumers
    > > that takes into consideration certain things like topography,
    > > atmospheric conditions, capacity and the like? Give me a break, the
    > > current maps are a guide and nothing less and you shouldn't need
    > > anything else.
    > >
    > > You need this type of detailed map, probably to be developed by NASA or
    > > something, so the carrier can pass additional costs on to the consumer?
    > >
    > > Dip Shit Al, realize this...everytime you call CS for your idiotic
    > > concerns that generates a cost...A cost that's typically about 5 bucks a
    > > phone call. Don't you think those costs are passed along somewhere to
    > > the consumer? Save your useless breath - call customer service when you
    > > have a real issue. There's going to be dead spots, there's going to be
    > > dropped calls. If you want reliability stick to your land line or talk
    > > face face.
    > >
    > > Call the FCC and waste their time and my tax dollars too. I'm sure they
    > > have more important things to worry about because you can't make phone
    > > when you're at baseball game to wave at your jackass friend across the
    > > stadium or to call some and say "guess where I am, I'm at a baseball
    > > game." Or because your phone won't work while you're standing in line at
    > > the grocery store trying to make a call while others are waiting for
    > > your dumb ass to pay attention and pay your bill.
    > >
    > > And then you call for additional regulation? The competitive
    > > marketplace has done just fine solving these issues themselves. That's
    > > all we need is more government regulation, more bureaucracy and higher
    > > costs.
    > >
    > > See the forest from the trees you dip shit.
    > > --
    > > The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
    > > totally amazing.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Hey buddy, don't be a coward, come one and use your real name.
    >
    > For one thing, Al was making an attempt at humor. For another, a rate map
    > is not a coverage map. They ARE required by this *code* to offer coverage
    > maps. That doesn't mean every square inch of the USA. Assumptions about
    > coverage from a tower is probably fine. But a reasonable attempt by listing
    > tower locations is certainly in order. This alone would show all the holes
    > in the America's choice network (or Sprint's Free & Clear PCS network for
    > that fact) that current rate maps show as covered. This also does not
    > preclude the carriers from offering rate maps as well (roaming carriers
    > obviously would not be on a coverage map for Verizon unless they decided to
    > specifically add it).
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  14. Bob Smith

    Bob Smith Guest

    "PHil_Real" <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in message
    news:phil_tape-32FCA7.15225016092003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <vmern76uau4rc7@corp.supernews.com>,
    > blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:
    >
    > > So, you expect there to be some magic map, available to all

    consumers
    > > that takes into consideration certain things like topography,
    > > atmospheric conditions, capacity and the like? Give me a break,

    the
    > > current maps are a guide and nothing less and you shouldn't need
    > > anything else.

    >
    >
    > I think customers expect a map that the industry code says the

    companies
    > will provide, and there are ample posts here to show that the real

    world
    > is often widely at variance with the published maps, and hence was

    the
    > reason for the new industry code, which SprintPCS has yet to catch

    up to.

    Uhhh, Phillippe, no wait a minute, you changed your ID to Richard ...
    uhhh, that's not it ... that's right, you changed your ID again to P.
    Reality ... damn, you changed that one too, to PHil Real, the original
    poster did not mention what date those brochures were printed up.
    Could have been an old one. By the way, the OP was talking about
    Verizon.

    The problem with seeing maps are that coverage areas change on a
    daily, weekly & monthly basis, as mentioned previously by other
    posters, including the above along with other influences, and it
    happens with all the providers, not just SPCS, Verizon, or anyone
    else.

    Bob
     
  15. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
    news:vmet9f3f299j7d@corp.supernews.com...
    > You show a lack of industry understanding...I work in the industry for a
    > major, undisclosed, player. I'm not in customer service, sales or
    > network and I'm not some 25K a year employee.
    >
    > Do you realize how often the type of collateral (i.e. tower locations)
    > would change for any given carrier? Shit, it's hard enough to get an
    > accurate and up to date list INTERNALLY, let alone one that's accurate
    > for the general public.
    >
    > I can just anticipate the law suits from ambulance chasers because the
    > map they have isn't "accurate" or was "misleading."
    >
    > Johnny Cocharn anyone? "If it don't complete it's obsolete..."
    >
    > All Networks have holes. Deal with it. That's why reputable carriers
    > have things like return policies so you can use the phone in locations
    > that you would typically use it, like work, home or your commute, to
    > determine if it suits your needs.
    >
    > If you really have to have tower location information, go to the
    > following site:
    >
    > http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistrationSearch.jsp
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
    > totally amazing.
    >




    And what happens if after the return date, coverage degrades in a particular
    area?

    Johnny Cocharn anyone? "Return the phones too late, pay to early terminate."



    In addition to providing accurate coverage maps for new customers, carriers
    should keep up with their existing network, and changes to existing service
    areas. That would have been a great standard.
     
  16. college guy

    college guy Guest

    al, i hope you realize that every company has almost the exact thing on
    all of their maps as well. and if you want to go by the new *code* then
    why not require all companies to show on their maps where they borrow
    their signal from?? you would see companies like sprint, suncom, and
    alltel's actual coverage area shrink quite a bit. this holds especially
    true in the carolinas. and isn't general and approximate kinda of the
    same thing?

    "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in article
    <qFJ9b.379$y63.250@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>:
    > I have never had so much heming and hawing as I did today. The new 10-point
    > consumer information code is now in effect and signed by most cellular
    > companies. Point two says they will "provide coverage maps, illustrating
    > where service is generally available." Voluntary best practices my foot.
    >
    > So I called and asked for one. The rep. said it's in the brochure. I read
    > the line of the brochure that says "These maps show approximately where
    > rates apply based on our internal data." One brochure says "This rate map
    > shows where rates apply and is NOT (their emphasis) a depiction of actual
    > service availability or wireless coverage." Its VZW for those interested.
    >
    > The rep was speechless. Give them a call and see what happens.
    > The bottom line already they are breaking their pledges and this is an
    > industry that needs heavy regulation, tracking of dead spots and of
    > no-service and other service issues and problems.
    > Plus an actual real coverage map would be nice. But I don't think its going
    > to happen.
    > What was that FCC number again, oh yeah, 1-888-225-5322
    >
    > AL
    >
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  17. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest


    >
    > "BlahBlah Blabber"


    sounds like Cletis Perkins with all the obscenities,
    anyone complained to SuperNews yet?
     
  18. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <9b226a59c4ab0d23a4673a895b10e46d@news.teranews.com>,
    "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote:

    > And thus the 14 day return policy. Buy it and try it. It's great. The
    > only trouble is, and the maps don't help, but when service or coverage
    > changes for the worse in a given area.


    The proposed California Law would require 30 days.

    Also what happens if you change jobs, move, graduate, get reassigned,
    get sent overseas, buy a new house; and no longer have coverage?
     
  19. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <vmet9f3f299j7d@corp.supernews.com>,
    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:

    > You show a lack of industry understanding...I work in the industry for a
    > major, undisclosed, player. I'm not in customer service, sales or
    > network and I'm not some 25K a year employee.


    You do sound like a High School dropout with all that bad language. Are
    you Cletis?
     
  20. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "PHil_Real" <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in message
    news:phil_tape-331585.15530216092003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <9b226a59c4ab0d23a4673a895b10e46d@news.teranews.com>,
    > "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote:
    >
    > > And thus the 14 day return policy. Buy it and try it. It's great. The
    > > only trouble is, and the maps don't help, but when service or coverage
    > > changes for the worse in a given area.

    >
    > The proposed California Law would require 30 days.
    >
    > Also what happens if you change jobs, move, graduate, get reassigned,
    > get sent overseas, buy a new house; and no longer have coverage?


    My point exactly. A good standard would have been to assure a good faith
    effort to maintain coverage in the areas where they advertise it.
    Personally, I think 14 days is plenty, but it's what happens when service
    changes after the return period is over that can be problematic.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?