1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  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!

Want to have fun with customer service? Do this!

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

  1. touche on the one liner.

    report the problem to carrier, its in their interest to fix problems and
    are usually receptive to feedback if it's not some yahoo that calls in
    because of one dropped call.

    BTW - the Terms and Conditions of your contract are fully disclosed to
    you at the point of sale and contain clauses that outline your concern
    with service degradation. If you don't like the carriers T&C shop
    around to another.

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


    "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
    <4981882923de3eff622790fcafc896a2@news.teranews.com>:
    >
    > "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.
    >
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



    › See More: Want to have fun with customer service? Do this!
  2. cell play

    cell play Guest

    Hey AL, you're a moron. Look on their website, the map has changed and
    is much clearer. Every carrier has the same thing on all their coverage
    maps. And it is an approximation due to the fact that cellular service
    and signal strength can vary based upon many conditions, including
    weather. All in all, don't you have anything better to do?

    "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]
  3. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <vmeufa36j0ue8b@corp.supernews.com>,
    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:

    > touche on the one liner.
    >
    > report the problem to carrier, its in their interest to fix problems and
    > are usually receptive to feedback if it's not some yahoo that calls in
    > because of one dropped call.


    > BTW - the Terms and Conditions of your contract are fully disclosed to
    > you at the point of sale and contain clauses that outline your concern
    > with service degradation. If you don't like the carriers T&C shop
    > around to another.


    Must be Cletis. Any regular to Sprintpcs newsgroup would know all that
    was done, and knows nothing was done until the customer wrote his
    State's Attorney General.


    Sprint's unenforceable T&C say (in only slightly different words) " we
    guarantee nothing." Luckily there is the common law principle of
    "Fitness for Purpose".

    As someone elegantly wrote in the SprintPCS newsgroup a set of T&C is a
    lawyers's wish list, and much of it is unenforceable unless the customer
    is talked out of complaining because of the text of the T&C.
  4. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <b101c59b6918e35bd259911b6b8cb2da@news.teranews.com>,
    "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote:

    >
    > "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.



    I think if a person's circumstances change through no fault of their
    own, there should be a way out of contract. Return the phone, pay $50,
    and service is prorated to that day.

    If coverage changes because of actions or inactions by cellular carrier
    (like happened to Justin), they should be let out of contract in
    exchange for returning the phone and all fees waived, and service
    prorated to that day.
  5. No. Who's Cletis? Related to Cooter?

    I'm posting to a news group not writing a dissertation. Always funny
    how news group yahoos (like yourself) critique "language" as last
    resort. "He can't spell therefore the message lacks credibiltiy."

    "He said the S word...." Well stick to sponge bob buddy. Don't go to a
    rated PG movie.

    HS Drop out? Look at your language - Hardly Pulitzer material.
    There's no need for the "do" and "High School" doesn't need to be
    capitalized.

    Or is that capitolized? Hmmmm





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


    PHil_Real <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in article
    <phil_tape-BE02BA.15543516092003@news02.west.earthlink.net>:
    > 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?


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  6. No Cletis here....


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


    PHil_Real <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in article
    <phil_tape-E77B19.16184016092003@news02.west.earthlink.net>:
    > In article <vmeufa36j0ue8b@corp.supernews.com>,
    > blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:
    >
    > > touche on the one liner.
    > >
    > > report the problem to carrier, its in their interest to fix problems and
    > > are usually receptive to feedback if it's not some yahoo that calls in
    > > because of one dropped call.

    >
    > > BTW - the Terms and Conditions of your contract are fully disclosed to
    > > you at the point of sale and contain clauses that outline your concern
    > > with service degradation. If you don't like the carriers T&C shop
    > > around to another.

    >
    > Must be Cletis. Any regular to Sprintpcs newsgroup would know all that
    > was done, and knows nothing was done until the customer wrote his
    > State's Attorney General.
    >
    >
    > Sprint's unenforceable T&C say (in only slightly different words) " we
    > guarantee nothing." Luckily there is the common law principle of
    > "Fitness for Purpose".
    >
    > As someone elegantly wrote in the SprintPCS newsgroup a set of T&C is a
    > lawyers's wish list, and much of it is unenforceable unless the customer
    > is talked out of complaining because of the text of the T&C.


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  7. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <vmf0i4cehdqsdf@corp.supernews.com>,
    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:

    > No Cletis here....
    >
    >


    just someone's nephew?
  8. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <vmevc33ipto3e0@corp.supernews.com>,
    lately@late.com (cell play) wrote:

    > Hey AL, you're a moron. Look on their website, the map has changed and
    > is much clearer. Every carrier has the same thing on all their coverage
    > maps. And it is an approximation due to the fact that cellular service
    > and signal strength can vary based upon many conditions, including
    > weather. All in all, don't you have anything better to do?




    I think expecting honest from cellular carrier is a good thing. Too bad
    you make excuses for them.
  9. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <vmf09951m2lf47@corp.supernews.com>,
    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:

    > No. Who's Cletis? Related to Cooter?
    >
    > I'm posting to a news group not writing a dissertation. Always funny
    > how news group yahoos (like yourself) critique "language" as last
    > resort. "He can't spell therefore the message lacks credibiltiy."


    and using 4 letter words gives you credibility?
  10. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <aAK9b.20476$Aq2.9344@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > 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.


    How about discussing the topic under consideration. cellular carrier
    refusing to post accurate, complete and current maps; even after
    agreeing to do so.


    PLONK
  11. Bob Smith

    Bob Smith Guest

    "PHil_Real" <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in message
    news:phil_tape-5DCEFE.16522116092003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <aAK9b.20476$Aq2.9344@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > How about discussing the topic under consideration. cellular carrier
    > refusing to post accurate, complete and current maps; even after
    > agreeing to do so.
    >
    >
    > PLONK


    ROTFLOL ... for those of you who aren't aware (especially in the other
    newsgroups), the prior poster has changed his identity 4 times in less
    than three weeks. He also said that he had filtered yours truly 2
    weeks ago. What's more, he's usually the one who goes off topic on an
    attack against SPCS in the SPCS newsgroup.

    As to discussions on this thread, my comments on the original OP's
    discussion, were right on, when asking how old the brochure was ... or
    did you miss that too Phillippe?

    Bob
  12. AL

    AL Guest

    Yep, torment small simple minds like yours... And I gotcha :)

    AL

    p.s. The brochure was June of 2003 if anyone caress. But they signed the
    Code, now the have to produce, but they won't, not for many moons.

    "cell play" <lately@late.com> wrote in message
    news:vmevc33ipto3e0@corp.supernews.com...
    > Hey AL, you're a moron. Look on their website, the map has changed and
    > is much clearer. Every carrier has the same thing on all their coverage
    > maps. And it is an approximation due to the fact that cellular service
    > and signal strength can vary based upon many conditions, including
    > weather. All in all, don't you have anything better to do?
  13. Then don't read the post.

    Maybe you should visit
    alt.orgnaizations.chruchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints if you choose to
    take the moral, holier than though high ground.

    there's more offensive subjects on network tv...like network tv, don't
    watch it or read my post if the content offends you.

    Are you like this everyday or just days that end with a "Y".

    Yahoo.

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


    PHil_Real <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in article
    <phil_tape-81B621.16504316092003@news02.west.earthlink.net>:
    > In article <vmf09951m2lf47@corp.supernews.com>,
    > blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:
    >
    > > No. Who's Cletis? Related to Cooter?
    > >
    > > I'm posting to a news group not writing a dissertation. Always funny
    > > how news group yahoos (like yourself) critique "language" as last
    > > resort. "He can't spell therefore the message lacks credibiltiy."

    >
    > and using 4 letter words gives you credibility?


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  14. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <vmf2qpevmu9c0a@corp.supernews.com>,
    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:

    > Then don't read the post.
    >
    > Maybe you should visit
    > alt.orgnaizations.chruchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints if you choose to
    > take the moral, holier than though high ground.
    >
    > there's more offensive subjects on network tv...like network tv, don't
    > watch it or read my post if the content offends you.
    >
    > Are you like this everyday or just days that end with a "Y".


    PLONK
  15. BlahBlah Blabber wrote:
    >
    > Then don't read the post.
    >
    > Maybe you should visit
    > alt.orgnaizations.chruchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints if you choose to
    > take the moral, holier than though high ground.


    .... or just leave your front door opened on Sunday mornings.

    Larry
  16. cell play

    cell play Guest

    Got me on what? I care about my costs and end product. Just like the
    many frivolous lawsuits filed in America every day, those costs are
    reflected in our premiums. Calling customer service to ask about every
    plank of the Consumer code to get a rise costs $7. Do you think
    cellular companies eat that cost? If you do, you're naive. It's
    reflected in plan costs. All I'm saying is to spend your time doing
    something more productive and quit wasting everyone's money, just like
    you've wasted my time to prove that your statement about calling
    customer care is idiotic. The sad thing is your statements probably
    goaded some other moronic individuals (like PHil.... my nutz) into
    calling customer care, thusly compounding the wasted time and money with
    unneccessary calls to cust care.

    Have a good day genius.

    "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in article
    <PUL9b.1895$uF3.222@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>:
    > Yep, torment small simple minds like yours... And I gotcha :)
    >
    > AL
    >
    > p.s. The brochure was June of 2003 if anyone caress. But they signed the
    > Code, now the have to produce, but they won't, not for many moons.
    >
    > "cell play" <lately@late.com> wrote in message
    > news:vmevc33ipto3e0@corp.supernews.com...
    > > Hey AL, you're a moron. Look on their website, the map has changed and
    > > is much clearer. Every carrier has the same thing on all their coverage
    > > maps. And it is an approximation due to the fact that cellular service
    > > and signal strength can vary based upon many conditions, including
    > > weather. All in all, don't you have anything better to do?

    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  17. lately@late.com (cell play) wrote in article
    <vmf5j9em2sr689@corp.supernews.com>:
    > Got me on what? I care about my costs and end product. Just like the
    > many frivolous lawsuits filed in America every day, those costs are
    > reflected in our premiums. Calling customer service to ask about every
    > plank of the Consumer code to get a rise costs $7. Do you think
    > cellular companies eat that cost? If you do, you're naive. It's
    > reflected in plan costs.


    Actually, you are naive. Plan costs are not computed by
    some formula based on the cost of providing service.
    The plans are priced according to the market. The reason
    that there are so many different plans is that the carrier
    is attempting to both not lose subscribers based on price,
    but not leave money on the able from subscribers for
    whom price is not an over-riding issue.

    Furthermore, even if dividing the cost of customer
    service by the total calls, comes out to $7, this does
    not mean that the incremental cost of another call is
    $7, in reality the incremental cost is close to zero.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  18. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:39:02 GMT, "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot>
    wrote:

    >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
    >

    This is an industry that needs annual "Proof of Performance Tests",
    performed by reputable, TOUCHABLE outside RF engineering
    firms...exactly like broadcasting is forced to do.

    You have a license to cover this topographical area from W to X to Y
    to Z, inclusive. You WILL provide a MINIMUM standard level of RF
    across your spectrum of X microvolts per meter to ensure good service
    in your LICENSED operating area to provide the public with a certain
    level of service. This must be verified, annually, by a disconnected
    outside engineering firm who files the annual engineering report with
    the FCC bureaucrats. You have 90 days to correct any deficiencies in
    the report or FCC files a "Notice of Liability" on you sending in the
    Enforcement Bureau to see why you have not complied. Fines are
    $10,000/per day/per occurance until it's fixed.....

    Wanna bet we'd see LESS ads blasting Nextel and MORE tower crews
    erecting panels in the DEAD ZONES?....

    Hey! Great idea! New FCC ruling - no advertising as long as there
    are outstanding violations in coverage and performance. You can't
    afford saturation advertising....YOU HAVE TOWERS TO BUY!

    If we enforced this on all the carriers, we'd be rid of their stupid
    ads FOREVER!....(c;.....and the FCC would have cured its funding
    crunch!



    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?
  19. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:13:27 -0000, blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah
    Blabber) wrote:

    >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.


    Horseshit. Your AM/FM radio has solid coverage across the licensed
    area, supported by the Proof of Performance Tests it submits to,
    annually. Go ask any radio engineer at any station over 100 watts to
    see his last Proof of Performance report. Every station has them.....
    >
    >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.


    Every cellular carrier has an engineering study done to get his
    license in the first place. As part of that license application, a
    computer program is run by the engineering firm to determine the
    coverage area of every transmitter licensed to him. Every commercial
    transmitter from Smiley's Paging and Storm Door to your county's
    trunked radio system to Nextel and, yes, even Whorizon Wireless has
    them in every market across the country.

    All that's needed is to force the carrier to REVEAL these coverage
    maps to keep his license valid.......or 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?


    The maps exist for EVERY tower on EVERY system EVER erected and
    licensed. All they need to do is publish it.....forcibly, if
    necessary.
    >
    >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.


    Boo Hoo.....Every time WABC-AM has a Proof of Performance done on that
    beautiful Harris digital AM transmitter's pattern over New Jersey, it
    generates a cost, too. But, to keep their license, they do it.....

    This isn't a goddamn hobby. This is a professional company providing
    a professional service over the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. That's why we issued
    them a license, to SERVE THE PUBLIC, just like we did at WABC.

    They're not ham radio operators, you know, doing this for
    fun......Horseshit.
    >
    >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.


    Ah, the company line and the company attitude in full view. No
    citizen paying an FCC bureaucrat's salary is wasting their time.
    That's the ONLY reason the FCC exists....to serve the PUBLIC good.
    It's why Channel 4 isn't making big money playing pay-tv porn. There
    are RULES AND REGULATIONS for the public good.

    It's goddamn time these bureaucrats got off the bribes and do their
    jobs, actually......
    >
    >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.


    The "competitive market" has created a hodge-podge of half assed
    companies using a hodge podge of incompatible modulation systems on a
    hodge podge of half-assed systems bought up through acquisitions and
    patched together by a half-assed, undependable network of bought up
    phone companies. That's what the "competitive market" has done to
    cellular phones.

    When the FCC did its job, EVERY phone ran on EVERY system of EVERY
    company because they were all using the SAME system on the SAME
    frequencies with the SAME modulation......SAME reason you only have to
    buy ONE TV set to receive EVERY TV station with a license to transmit
    all the way from Coast to Coast!
    >
    >See the forest from the trees you dip shit.


    More teenage tongue sticking out and name calling. How childish of
    you. Are you 18 yet? 16? 12?



    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?
  20. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    I just called 611 and the clueless pinhead is sending me a new
    coverage map which I will bet $50 is the same old rate map we've seen
    for years......


    Thanks for the head's up!
    This should be fun.....(c;



    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:20:45 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >"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
    >
    >



    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?

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?