Want to have fun with customer service? Do this!

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:40:15 -0000, 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.
>
>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.

There's no "list" to it. Simply post the same coverage maps you filed
with your last FCC license application to a webpage and give us the
URL. It's not too much to ask and no further engineering study needs
to be done. Every FCC commercial application filed in the last 50
years has had one. Hell, I used to have to file it to get a ham radio
repeater until we got them used to the idea we were a hobby, which
your commercial company charging people money to use it is not.

I'll even accept an FTP server with the maps already on it. No need
to hype up a fancy webpage......I want to save the company lots of
money. Just put the maps in a public download FTP server. They
already have thousands of them with big bandwidth.

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

Ah, now we are getting down to the MEAT of the issue.....LIABILITY
caused by the LIES, False Advertising and MARKETING. Every goddamned
map they've ever published comes under that last word. Everything
printed is a LIE.
>
>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.

How can anyone "determine if it suits your needs" if we can't have an
ACCURATE map of the REAL COVERAGE? Why the hiding? Why the LIES?
>
>If you really have to have tower location information, go to the
>following site:
>
>http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistrationSearch.jsp
>
Tower location means nothing without topographical interface and, of
all people, YOU know it. Power, antenna gain, system loss, antenna
pattern, path loss and TOPOGRAPHY. It's all there in the REAL
coverage maps the companies ALREADY have paid for! What was that FTP
server address? We'll cross it to the tower numbers and sectors,
again to save the company money.



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?

 

"PHil_Real" <phil_tape@email.org> wrote >
> 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.

This sounded good to begin with and I was thinking "Probably not
possible since there would be no way to determine 'no fault of their
own'". "Really, it wasn't my fault. My wife just went nuts with the
credit card and blew all my money"...

Then I started thinking, why should the company take the fall
for "no fault" circumstances? This is the same reasoning that
people use when they justify something with "They're a big
company making lots of money so they should take the hit.
Besides its a drop in the bucket to them"... I don't agree with
that.

-Quick

 

*snipping out all the replies*

I am sure I'm not the first to say this, and I know I won't be the last,
but yes, it would be great if all the carriers could supply maps that
are 100% accurate.

But this is nearly impossible with any large-area wireless application,
from cel phones, to WiFi internet, to satellite TV, to AM/FM radio,
shortwave, CB, cordless phone, whatever. Our technology isn't good
enough that wireless can be as reliable as wired, no matter what anyone
says.

There are too many "variables" to even calculate 100% accurate coverage.
Coverage areas shrink and grow as usage goes higher and lower,
respectively. New buildings being put up interfere, new cel towers can
negatively effect performance. Storms, trees blooming in the
springtime, the wind can effect it, too. Even a lot of places have
deliberate blockers (hospitals etc..) and that can affect the coverage
for miles.

These dead spots move, grow, shrink on a constant basis, rarely being
the same size and place twice. Coverage is constantly changing due to
countless variables.

I'm sure all wireless service companies try their hardest to make the
maps as accurate as possible, but 100% is impossible.

How can they be accurate? We all see the Verizon commercials, "Can you
hear me now?". That is one way, but I'm sure paying a team of people to
do this full time would be expensive and the companies wouldn't eat the
costs of it. All the wireless providers do have teams of people who do
go out and test the network when they receive reports of dead spots, but
not on a constant basis.

I know SprintPCS used to have a way for customers to log dead spots, but
most of the people who called didn't want to answer all the questions,
or answered them incorrectly (location, cross street, time, weather,
surroundings, etc..), and it came to the point it was unreliable since
people were stretching the truth, making people do 2-3 times the testing
they had to.

I'm sure I speak for all the wireless providers when I say their network
operations teams are not stupid, they, and their corperate co-workers,
know the importance of having GOOD coverage, and as few dropped calls as
possible. They know this, and if they didn't, they never would have
made it this far. They know dropped calls is bad for business, and dead
spots are worse.

I also notice a lot of people are complaining that the plans are too
expensive, and they're also complaining about coverage. Well, how do
you think they're going to pay for this extra testing that you're
demanding for? Higher plan rates. The price wars seemed to have
bottomed out over the past few years, and now they're all trying to
recover losses and improve on their networks.

If you're calling in to report a dead spot, don't tretch the truth, that
will get nothing done. Be as specific as you can be (I never get
service near exit 117 on the Garden State Parkway in New jersey in the
afternoon / I always drop calls from mile pointer 98 to 102 in I95
though South Carolina etc..). Don't like about it, you're making a
difficult job even harder.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

 

"Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:3f679b91.160320704@news.knology.net...
> 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?

Excellent post.

 

"PHil_Real" <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in message
newshil_tape-3CD40A.16220716092003@news02.west.earthlink.net...

<snip>

> 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.

You realize you've just validated their early termination fee argument. Why
did you choose $50 as opposed to $150 or whatever the ETF is? Someone,
somewhere, made a calculation and they determined that they need to charge
$150. What makes your $50 estimate more valide than theirs? If you think
their estimate is too high, you're welcome to search for a company that has
a smaller ETF charge.

As to the phone, they don't want the phone. Its used and worthless to them.
It's definitely not worth your $100 trade off. Now, if they can prorate to
the day, that'd be great. But it's really not that high of a priority to
me. I'd rather they spend the money improving coverage rather than updating
their billing systems. I mean, come on, what's your monthly bill and how
often do you cancel services?

 

Seems to be a gaping hole in the credibility issue here.

You work in the industry and have nothing but disdain for those using your
service and paying your salary? I am guessing it is more than $25K a year

What is wrong with this picture

I know that the towers aren't moving. Perhaps some maturity in the industry
would create a plateau where the whole mess could be re-evaluated to
discover just where the towers are an who owns them. But, this is still an
immature industry, and as such will always be prone to instability until it
matures to the point of stability. .

All customers expect what is promised to them. Deal with it.

"The lack of concern of certain segments of the wireless population is
totally trivial. "


"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.
>
>
> "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]

 

So i guess that people wrote General Mills and Post when the wacky wall
walker you got in your cereal box didn't work the same as in the
commercial?

Along with myriad variables like weather, topograpphy, capacity, etc etc
, other factors dictate coverage. Towers do move, towers do change. New
towers get built, towers get moved. Real estate and leasing renewals (or
lack thereof) dictate coverage. Say VZW, SPCS, etc. lease a tower on
some guys land that decides he doesn't want a tower there anymore? guess
what?

How about land owners that won't permit carriers the necessary access to
bring the equipment on site to repair a tower on leased property?

Have you considered that some places are not allowed to have towers /
equipment where its really needed because the equipment will "adversely
impact an environmentally sensitive area..." Factors that dictate
coverage and the network are beyond what the average consumer can
comprehend.

Where were you promised that your cell phone will work every where you
want it? From the salesperson who gets paid on commission? I don't
know of any advertisement or disclosure, by any carrier that tells you
that. All you'll hear is "the largest, most advanced, nationwide
network."

and guess what, that's what it is....






"David Little" <dalite01@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<msO9b.22973$Aq2.153@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
> Seems to be a gaping hole in the credibility issue here.
>
> You work in the industry and have nothing but disdain for those using your
> service and paying your salary? I am guessing it is more than $25K a year
>
> What is wrong with this picture
>
> I know that the towers aren't moving. Perhaps some maturity in the industry
> would create a plateau where the whole mess could be re-evaluated to
> discover just where the towers are an who owns them. But, this is still an
> immature industry, and as such will always be prone to instability until it
> matures to the point of stability. .
>
> All customers expect what is promised to them. Deal with it.
>
> "The lack of concern of certain segments of the wireless population is
> totally trivial. "
>
>


[posted via phonescoop.com]

 

Now here is the beginning of the perfect marriage between Mr. Paradox and
Ms. Oxy-Moron.

It is wrong to expect a company to produce, so we are to be criticized when
we expect it.

When we ask a company to live up to their promises, we are accused of making
them spend more money and raising the rates of others; and they still don't
comply.

You care about CS costs to the point that it is easier to complain about
costs and never correct the problem than to spend the money to correct the
problem and avoid the CS costs.

More productive : Go along to get along? That did Reginald Denny a lot of
good, didn't it? Talk about getting your cake, eating it, and then
complaining about the stomach ache. Want some cheese with that whine?

Oh, and anyone that is "goaded" into expecting to get what they were
promised in exchange for their monthly rate payment is a moron? So much for
integrity...

And lastly, anyone who tries to get a company to do what they promised is
suspect of loosing IQ points for doing so? Do you read your posts before
you make them? I guess this is what we are will have to learn to expect in
the future. Anything goes, and those who complain are less than human.
Ever thought about working for a living?

"cell play" <lately@late.com> wrote in message
news: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 $7. Do you think
> cellular companies eat that cost? If you do, you're naive. It's
> reflected in plan costs. All I'm saying is to spend your time doing
> something more productive and quit wasting everyone's money, just like
> you've wasted my time to prove that your statement about calling
> customer care is idiotic. The sad thing is your statements probably
> goaded some other moronic individuals (like PHil.... my nutz) into
> calling customer care, thusly compounding the wasted time and money with
> unneccessary calls to cust care.
>
> Have a good day genius.
>
> "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in article
> <PUL9b.1895$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]

 

"BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
news:vmfdv7o5u2c88c@corp.supernews.com...
> So i guess that people wrote General Mills and Post when the wacky wall
> walker you got in your cereal box didn't work the same as in the
> commercial?
>
> Along with myriad variables like weather, topograpphy, capacity, etc etc
> , other factors dictate coverage. Towers do move, towers do change. New
> towers get built, towers get moved. Real estate and leasing renewals (or
> lack thereof) dictate coverage. Say VZW, SPCS, etc. lease a tower on
> some guys land that decides he doesn't want a tower there anymore? guess
> what?
>
> How about land owners that won't permit carriers the necessary access to
> bring the equipment on site to repair a tower on leased property?

You got a source for that happening? Usually leases of land include a
right-of-way to access the leased land.

> Have you considered that some places are not allowed to have towers /
> equipment where its really needed because the equipment will "adversely
> impact an environmentally sensitive area..." Factors that dictate
> coverage and the network are beyond what the average consumer can
> comprehend.

> Where were you promised that your cell phone will work every where you
> want it?

So when service works for 5 months, then doesn't, the consumer is just shit
out of luck?

> From the salesperson who gets paid on commission? I don't
> know of any advertisement or disclosure, by any carrier that tells you
> that. All you'll hear is "the largest, most advanced, nationwide
> network."
>
> and guess what, that's what it is....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David Little" <dalite01@sprynet.com> wrote in article
> <msO9b.22973$Aq2.153@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
> > Seems to be a gaping hole in the credibility issue here.
> >
> > You work in the industry and have nothing but disdain for those using
your
> > service and paying your salary? I am guessing it is more than $25K a
year
> >
> > What is wrong with this picture
> >
> > I know that the towers aren't moving. Perhaps some maturity in the
industry
> > would create a plateau where the whole mess could be re-evaluated to
> > discover just where the towers are an who owns them. But, this is still
an
> > immature industry, and as such will always be prone to instability until
it
> > matures to the point of stability. .
> >
> > All customers expect what is promised to them. Deal with it.
> >
> > "The lack of concern of certain segments of the wireless population is
> > totally trivial. "
> >
> >
>
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

 

"David Little" <dalite01@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:aKO9b.23089$Aq2.9481@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Now here is the beginning of the perfect marriage between Mr. Paradox and
> Ms. Oxy-Moron.
>
> It is wrong to expect a company to produce, so we are to be criticized
when
> we expect it.
>
> When we ask a company to live up to their promises, we are accused of
making
> them spend more money and raising the rates of others; and they still
don't
> comply.
>
> You care about CS costs to the point that it is easier to complain about
> costs and never correct the problem than to spend the money to correct the
> problem and avoid the CS costs.
>
> More productive : Go along to get along? That did Reginald Denny a lot of
> good, didn't it? Talk about getting your cake, eating it, and then
> complaining about the stomach ache. Want some cheese with that whine?
>
> Oh, and anyone that is "goaded" into expecting to get what they were
> promised in exchange for their monthly rate payment is a moron? So much
for
> integrity...
>
> And lastly, anyone who tries to get a company to do what they promised is
> suspect of loosing IQ points for doing so? Do you read your posts before
> you make them? I guess this is what we are will have to learn to expect
in
> the future. Anything goes, and those who complain are less than human.
> Ever thought about working for a living?


Apparently, you catch more hell from complaining in these forums than you do
from talking to CS.

 

So a company must incur a large expense to satisify an extremely small
percentage of the marketplace (less than 1%?) that RF geeks?

So, site surveys that are proprietary and public information should be
made available to general public - a public that also includes the
competition?

> There's no "list" to it. Simply post the same coverage maps you filed
> with your last FCC license application to a webpage and give us the
> URL. It's not too much to ask and no further engineering study needs
> to be done. Every FCC commercial application filed in the last 50
> years has had one. Hell, I used to have to file it to get a ham radio
> repeater until we got them used to the idea we were a hobby, which
> your commercial company charging people money to use it is not.
>

>
> Ah, now we are getting down to the MEAT of the issue.....LIABILITY
> caused by the LIES, False Advertising and MARKETING. Every goddamned
> map they've ever published comes under that last word. Everything
> printed is a LIE.

"Hi, I'm John Smith with the law firm Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. It
seems that your coverage map, a map that your company provides to the
public, stated that my client's cell phone would work in the area where
he was recently involved in car accident. Tragically, my clients
passenger, his wife, died because your cellular service was temporarily
unavailable...But you coverage map says that there is adequate coverage
in that area....Had your service performed up to the standards that
you've advertised, based on your own site surveys and surveys conducted
by an independent thrid party, surveys which your company uses to market
its product, my client would not have suffered such a tragic loss....My
client seeks $XXX,XXX,XXXX in puntive damages and pain and suffering
caused by Acme Cell Services negligence......


>
> How can anyone "determine if it suits your needs" if we can't have an
> ACCURATE map of the REAL COVERAGE? Why the hiding? Why the LIES?

> Tower location means nothing without topographical interface and, of
> all people, YOU know it. Power, antenna gain, system loss, antenna
> pattern, path loss and TOPOGRAPHY. It's all there in the REAL
> coverage maps the companies ALREADY have paid for!

Take the phone home and to/from your drive to work to see if it suits
your needs. Nect time you climb Mt. Everest take there too to make sure
it works.

>
>
>
> 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?

[posted via phonescoop.com]

 

Site Management - What a concept. Ever hear of it? The concept of
databasing all know RF sources in the coverage area to see if any
recombinant signals will interfere with your proposed one, or if your
proposed one will interfere with any others. Spread Spectrum, Frequency
Hopping - the concepts that were developed mainly for overcoming some of the
problems you mention. FEC (Forward Error Correction). After all, we are
talking digital here...

I always though the concept of "cellular" referred to "cells". If you are
unable to capture the closest cell, the control channel sends the command to
increase power in your handset until one of the other 2 or 3 towers in the
cell can be consistently acquired. The concept of the horizon causes tower
heights to be sufficient to communicate with each other. If
foliage/moisture blocks signal from one tower, pass it off to one of the
others.

Now I guess we will hear that a "cell" now only consists of one tower, And
the redundancy (like the encryption) that was originally promised to the FCC
in exchange for licensing cellular was a pipe dream also.

It is beginning to become somewhat apparent that the customer base is
growing tired of the "mushroom treatment" (fed $hit, and kept in the dark)?
Words mean things. Promises mean things. The customer, by and large
expects what is promised by the service when he/she signs away 12 months of
their freedom of choice in exchange for the requirement to pay the
contracted rate for the next 12 months; service or no service. Why can't
the customer expect to get reasonable, real-world based answers to their
questions about coverage. I will be willing to bet a few nickels that there
are no Authorized Sales Centers telling customers the things that those
defending the providers are spewing in the newsgroups about the weakness of
cellular communications. I can work satellites that are 22,420 miles away
with a few watts. No one has died yet of SHF/microwave radiation coming
down from the sky to their Direct TV dish. If the amount of time, effort
and money was spent addressing the problems as is spent trying to justify
them, the problems may just become less in number. Profit would have little
chance to increase as the problems decrease. Word of mouth can be a source
of revenue that isn't charged for by contract. It can be freely offered due
to satisfaction from good service.

I understand that no system is perfect. In any wireless communication,
there are man-made and natural interference obstacles. All I would ask is
to have this explained to the customer up front, rather than all the
disclaimers that are included in the fine print that tell the customer that
the provider isn't responsible when the known un-controllables pop up and
rain on the parade. A little honesty and integrity would go a long way in
getting the service up to par in an area of coverage first, then spending
money to expand later. If the tower won't reach further than 10 miles,
don't sell coverage 11 miles out. This isn't exactly rocket science here.
Knowing the 18 (possibly more) propagation patterns that affect RF signals
above 50 MHz requires a bit of thought and understanding, knowing a 10 mile
signal won't reliably reach out 11 miles doesn't. All we have to do now is
to be honest about that fact when approached by potential new customers.

"SprintPCS Tech" <pcsguy@bellsouthNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:vmfb8cbhh13ia7@corp.supernews.com...
> *snipping out all the replies*
>
> I am sure I'm not the first to say this, and I know I won't be the last,
> but yes, it would be great if all the carriers could supply maps that
> are 100% accurate.
>
> But this is nearly impossible with any large-area wireless application,
> from cel phones, to WiFi internet, to satellite TV, to AM/FM radio,
> shortwave, CB, cordless phone, whatever. Our technology isn't good
> enough that wireless can be as reliable as wired, no matter what anyone
> says.
>
> There are too many "variables" to even calculate 100% accurate coverage.
> Coverage areas shrink and grow as usage goes higher and lower,
> respectively. New buildings being put up interfere, new cel towers can
> negatively effect performance. Storms, trees blooming in the
> springtime, the wind can effect it, too. Even a lot of places have
> deliberate blockers (hospitals etc..) and that can affect the coverage
> for miles.
>
> These dead spots move, grow, shrink on a constant basis, rarely being
> the same size and place twice. Coverage is constantly changing due to
> countless variables.
>
> I'm sure all wireless service companies try their hardest to make the
> maps as accurate as possible, but 100% is impossible.
>
> How can they be accurate? We all see the Verizon commercials, "Can you
> hear me now?". That is one way, but I'm sure paying a team of people to
> do this full time would be expensive and the companies wouldn't eat the
> costs of it. All the wireless providers do have teams of people who do
> go out and test the network when they receive reports of dead spots, but
> not on a constant basis.
>
> I know SprintPCS used to have a way for customers to log dead spots, but
> most of the people who called didn't want to answer all the questions,
> or answered them incorrectly (location, cross street, time, weather,
> surroundings, etc..), and it came to the point it was unreliable since
> people were stretching the truth, making people do 2-3 times the testing
> they had to.
>
> I'm sure I speak for all the wireless providers when I say their network
> operations teams are not stupid, they, and their corperate co-workers,
> know the importance of having GOOD coverage, and as few dropped calls as
> possible. They know this, and if they didn't, they never would have
> made it this far. They know dropped calls is bad for business, and dead
> spots are worse.
>
> I also notice a lot of people are complaining that the plans are too
> expensive, and they're also complaining about coverage. Well, how do
> you think they're going to pay for this extra testing that you're
> demanding for? Higher plan rates. The price wars seemed to have
> bottomed out over the past few years, and now they're all trying to
> recover losses and improve on their networks.
>
> If you're calling in to report a dead spot, don't tretch the truth, that
> will get nothing done. Be as specific as you can be (I never get
> service near exit 117 on the Garden State Parkway in New jersey in the
> afternoon / I always drop calls from mile pointer 98 to 102 in I95
> though South Carolina etc..). Don't like about it, you're making a
> difficult job even harder.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

 

"BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
news:vmfeutau503gb1@corp.supernews.com...
> So a company must incur a large expense to satisify an extremely small
> percentage of the marketplace (less than 1%?) that RF geeks?

No, the company needs to decide if it's going to expand into those areas.
If it isn't, DON'T ADVERTISE THERE.

 

How do you spell church? PS. I think this guy is being a jerk too, but
he provided a valid link.

PHil_Real <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in article
<phil_tape-1F32D8.17481216092003@news02.west.earthlink.net>:
> 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

[posted via phonescoop.com]

 

Let me see... The tower that is currently being leased on the land I live
on complied with the strict environmental regulations when it was built.
Then it was grandfathered.

Anyone who spends the money to pump 40 feet wide and 40 feet deep worth of
dirt, sluice it and pour the cement pads necessary to support the tower's
weight and wind resistance on the sluiced and compacted earth below it, and
doesn't procure a right of way for the tower isn't exactly what I would be
looking for as investment potential in the market. I have gone out at 1 am
or later/earlier to let them on the land, when they couldn't remember the
combination to their lock on the gate. I am no saint. no rocket
scientist... I don't even get the revenue from the lease. I tried to report
a tower light that was out before they were fined. They treated me like I
was an alien from another planet when called to give them a head's up.

The variables haven't changed since the service was approved by the FCC.
They were there before, and they will be there after. The desire for profit
overcame them before; what is wrong now. This is a part of the
responsibility factor; you know full good and well going into the venture
what you had to deal with; now deal with it and stop complaining about it.

I have had cell phone service since it came to the town where I live. When
I get signal, I make a call. When I don't get signal, I can't make a call.
When I don't get signal within the area of coverage (along an interstate,
within a city, or any landmark that is referenced in the coverage area), I
can't use the service. I pay for the service to be able to use it in the
coverage area. All I want is for the coverage area to be covered, or a
public admission/confirmation from the provider that they can't cover their
advertised coverage area. It doesn't matter who the carrier is; honesty is
older than they are.

I can accept that wireless technology can be difficult to master. However,
it has been around long enough for a potential player to evaluate the risks
before joining the game. Complaining about how unfair it is to have to live
up to your promises, somewhere in the 3rd inning, isn't my idea of the way
the game should be played.

BTW, General Mills and Post gave me my secret decoder ring when I paid for
the horse food. I paid all the bread at once; with no crumbs to follow, and
I still got the full contents of the cereal; sold by weight - not volume..
I didn't have to pay the monthly for the next entire year for it to discolor
my finger and still not decode the mysteries of the universe. I got used to
a little rain on my parade quite a few decades ago.


"BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
news:vmfdv7o5u2c88c@corp.supernews.com...
> So i guess that people wrote General Mills and Post when the wacky wall
> walker you got in your cereal box didn't work the same as in the
> commercial?
>
> Along with myriad variables like weather, topograpphy, capacity, etc etc
> , other factors dictate coverage. Towers do move, towers do change. New
> towers get built, towers get moved. Real estate and leasing renewals (or
> lack thereof) dictate coverage. Say VZW, SPCS, etc. lease a tower on
> some guys land that decides he doesn't want a tower there anymore? guess
> what?
>
> How about land owners that won't permit carriers the necessary access to
> bring the equipment on site to repair a tower on leased property?
>
> Have you considered that some places are not allowed to have towers /
> equipment where its really needed because the equipment will "adversely
> impact an environmentally sensitive area..." Factors that dictate
> coverage and the network are beyond what the average consumer can
> comprehend.
>
> Where were you promised that your cell phone will work every where you
> want it? From the salesperson who gets paid on commission? I don't
> know of any advertisement or disclosure, by any carrier that tells you
> that. All you'll hear is "the largest, most advanced, nationwide
> network."
>
> and guess what, that's what it is....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David Little" <dalite01@sprynet.com> wrote in article
> <msO9b.22973$Aq2.153@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
> > Seems to be a gaping hole in the credibility issue here.
> >
> > You work in the industry and have nothing but disdain for those using
your
> > service and paying your salary? I am guessing it is more than $25K a
year
> >
> > What is wrong with this picture
> >
> > I know that the towers aren't moving. Perhaps some maturity in the
industry
> > would create a plateau where the whole mess could be re-evaluated to
> > discover just where the towers are an who owns them. But, this is still
an
> > immature industry, and as such will always be prone to instability until
it
> > matures to the point of stability. .
> >
> > All customers expect what is promised to them. Deal with it.
> >
> > "The lack of concern of certain segments of the wireless population is
> > totally trivial. "
> >
> >
>
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

 

OK....then the carriers should ensure that radio station, tv, newspaper
etc. ads are filtered from the Justin Greene-centric universe because he
doesn't want to see advertising that may not be entirely truthful.

You know, I hate to tell you, Santas Claus really isn't real.



"Justin Green" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
<vmffhpan0tct18@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> "BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
> news:vmfeutau503gb1@corp.supernews.com...
> > So a company must incur a large expense to satisify an extremely small
> > percentage of the marketplace (less than 1%?) that RF geeks?
>
> No, the company needs to decide if it's going to expand into those areas.
> If it isn't, DON'T ADVERTISE THERE.
>
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

 

"BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
news:vmfhbotcsv4lc8@corp.supernews.com...
> OK....then the carriers should ensure that radio station, tv, newspaper
> etc. ads are filtered from the Justin Greene-centric universe because he
> doesn't want to see advertising that may not be entirely truthful.
>
> You know, I hate to tell you, Santas Claus really isn't real.
>
>

No, when they say that coverage works in Little Elm, where I live, and it is
dark green on their map, it better damn well work there within reason. When
it doesn't, and they are still telling customers that it does, they are
lying. Don't know how to explain that any clearer to you.

I am one customer, if they don't want to provide service out here for lack
of customers DON'T ADVERTISE IT HERE.

It's called HONESTY. Look it up.

 

Why must you be so offensive? That you have made this post into a
personal attack distracts from whatever it is you are pretending to say.
If I come across sounding too ignorant I can expect a critic or two,
but this? If you are not just a Troll looking to cause a scene- try to
get your points across without going into an attack mode.

blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote in article
<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]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

 

If ther game is so stacked againt, why have the service. If it so full
of lies and deciet, why bother?

BTW - the days when towers were self supporting structures on cement
pads that you describe are over. Although they exist, and will continue
to exist, its not the only place carriers have (and often share) towers.

Anecdote - this is 100% true, no BS:

Big storm, bad weather. Cell tower on a hill accessalbe by dirt road.
Cell tower is knocked out. Cell tower has A LOT of traffic compared to
other towers within the region. Cell Company shows up on scene w/in 8
hourss (still bad weather) to make repairs. Land owner says you ain't
driving on my property when its wet and muddy - i don't want the
ruts/erosion. Company offers to have gravel laid on site to prevent
ruts and erosion. Land owner says no way, you're waiting till its dry.
It ain't dry for several days. There ain't coverage for several days.

Ancedote:

I have satellite TV. I have to pay my bill every month and have a
contract. I have a contract because they gave me 2 recievers just to
sign up with them. Sometimes a storm blows through, I lose my satellite
tv. Do I call Direct TV to complain every single time? Do I demand
advanced alert when my service may be out?

I have electricitly. Sometimes the electricity goes out. I have to pay
my electric bill everymonth.. I can switch providers but all they really
are are a reseller of the power comapny.....etc. etc. etc.

I have cable tv. I have to pay my cable bill everymonth. sometimes the
cable goes out. etc. etc. etc.

The milk is spilt. Quit crying. Your phone works better than itdid 10
years and works worse than it will in 10 years.

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


"David Little" <dalite01@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<ppP9b.23398$Aq2.8254@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
> Let me see... The tower that is currently being leased on the land I live
> on complied with the strict environmental regulations when it was built.
> Then it was grandfathered.
>
> Anyone who spends the money to pump 40 feet wide and 40 feet deep worth of
> dirt, sluice it and pour the cement pads necessary to support the tower's
> weight and wind resistance on the sluiced and compacted earth below it, and
> doesn't procure a right of way for the tower isn't exactly what I would be
> looking for as investment potential in the market. I have gone out at 1 am
> or later/earlier to let them on the land, when they couldn't remember the
> combination to their lock on the gate. I am no saint. no rocket
> scientist... I don't even get the revenue from the lease. I tried to report
> a tower light that was out before they were fined. They treated me like I
> was an alien from another planet when called to give them a head's up.
>
> The variables haven't changed since the service was approved by the FCC.
> They were there before, and they will be there after. The desire for profit
> overcame them before; what is wrong now. This is a part of the
> responsibility factor; you know full good and well going into the venture
> what you had to deal with; now deal with it and stop complaining about it.
>
> I have had cell phone service since it came to the town where I live. When
> I get signal, I make a call. When I don't get signal, I can't make a call.
> When I don't get signal within the area of coverage (along an interstate,
> within a city, or any landmark that is referenced in the coverage area), I
> can't use the service. I pay for the service to be able to use it in the
> coverage area. All I want is for the coverage area to be covered, or a
> public admission/confirmation from the provider that they can't cover their
> advertised coverage area. It doesn't matter who the carrier is; honesty is
> older than they are.
>
> I can accept that wireless technology can be difficult to master. However,
> it has been around long enough for a potential player to evaluate the risks
> before joining the game. Complaining about how unfair it is to have to live
> up to your promises, somewhere in the 3rd inning, isn't my idea of the way
> the game should be played.
>
> BTW, General Mills and Post gave me my secret decoder ring when I paid for
> the horse food. I paid all the bread at once; with no crumbs to follow, and
> I still got the full contents of the cereal; sold by weight - not volume..
> I didn't have to pay the monthly for the next entire year for it to discolor
> my finger and still not decode the mysteries of the universe. I got used to
> a little rain on my parade quite a few decades ago.
>
>
> "BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
> news:vmfdv7o5u2c88c@corp.supernews.com...
> > So i guess that people wrote General Mills and Post when the wacky wall
> > walker you got in your cereal box didn't work the same as in the
> > commercial?
> >
> > Along with myriad variables like weather, topograpphy, capacity, etc etc
> > , other factors dictate coverage. Towers do move, towers do change. New
> > towers get built, towers get moved. Real estate and leasing renewals (or
> > lack thereof) dictate coverage. Say VZW, SPCS, etc. lease a tower on
> > some guys land that decides he doesn't want a tower there anymore? guess
> > what?
> >
> > How about land owners that won't permit carriers the necessary access to
> > bring the equipment on site to repair a tower on leased property?
> >
> > Have you considered that some places are not allowed to have towers /
> > equipment where its really needed because the equipment will "adversely
> > impact an environmentally sensitive area..." Factors that dictate
> > coverage and the network are beyond what the average consumer can
> > comprehend.
> >
> > Where were you promised that your cell phone will work every where you
> > want it? From the salesperson who gets paid on commission? I don't
> > know of any advertisement or disclosure, by any carrier that tells you
> > that. All you'll hear is "the largest, most advanced, nationwide
> > network."
> >
> > and guess what, that's what it is....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "David Little" <dalite01@sprynet.com> wrote in article
> > <msO9b.22973$Aq2.153@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
> > > Seems to be a gaping hole in the credibility issue here.
> > >
> > > You work in the industry and have nothing but disdain for those using
> your
> > > service and paying your salary? I am guessing it is more than $25K a
> year
> > >
> > > What is wrong with this picture
> > >
> > > I know that the towers aren't moving. Perhaps some maturity in the
> industry
> > > would create a plateau where the whole mess could be re-evaluated to
> > > discover just where the towers are an who owns them. But, this is still
> an
> > > immature industry, and as such will always be prone to instability until
> it
> > > matures to the point of stability. .
> > >
> > > All customers expect what is promised to them. Deal with it.
> > >
> > > "The lack of concern of certain segments of the wireless population is
> > > totally trivial. "
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

 

"BlahBlah Blabber" <blah_blah@blahblah.com> wrote in message
news:vmficcobn9r5e0@corp.supernews.com...
> If ther game is so stacked againt, why have the service. If it so full
> of lies and deciet, why bother?
>
> BTW - the days when towers were self supporting structures on cement
> pads that you describe are over. Although they exist, and will continue
> to exist, its not the only place carriers have (and often share) towers.
>
> Anecdote - this is 100% true, no BS:
>
> Big storm, bad weather. Cell tower on a hill accessalbe by dirt road.
> Cell tower is knocked out. Cell tower has A LOT of traffic compared to
> other towers within the region. Cell Company shows up on scene w/in 8
> hourss (still bad weather) to make repairs. Land owner says you ain't
> driving on my property when its wet and muddy - i don't want the
> ruts/erosion. Company offers to have gravel laid on site to prevent
> ruts and erosion. Land owner says no way, you're waiting till its dry.
> It ain't dry for several days. There ain't coverage for several days.
>
> Ancedote:
>
> I have satellite TV. I have to pay my bill every month and have a
> contract. I have a contract because they gave me 2 recievers just to
> sign up with them. Sometimes a storm blows through, I lose my satellite
> tv. Do I call Direct TV to complain every single time? Do I demand
> advanced alert when my service may be out?
>
> I have electricitly. Sometimes the electricity goes out. I have to pay
> my electric bill everymonth.. I can switch providers but all they really
> are are a reseller of the power comapny.....etc. etc. etc.
>
> I have cable tv. I have to pay my cable bill everymonth. sometimes the
> cable goes out. etc. etc. etc.
>
> The milk is spilt. Quit crying. Your phone works better than itdid 10
> years and works worse than it will in 10 years.


What about when it doesn't work at all in an area, not just short
power/tower outages? That is what most people complain about. Not the
occassional outage or dropped call. The areas where the connected call is
the exception, yet the carrier still advertises/tells you that the service
works.

Funny, but the personnel in the store can falsely represent that coverage is
excellent in an area, yet they hold you to a contract based on an oral
agreement.

Get the point?