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. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "Marty Bose" <martyb@sonic.net> wrote in message
    news:170920031844544169%martyb@sonic.net...
    > (snip)
    >
    > > Obviously not--cellular has been offered for decades and we still don't

    have
    > > access to high-quality coverage maps. In many matters like this one, no
    > > single
    > > carrier is willing to be the first (e.g., to publish its actual coverage

    map),
    > > because other carriers will take advantage of the first carrier's

    weaknesses
    > > without admitting their own weaknesses. A federal regulation is a very

    simple
    > > solution to force *all* the carriers to publish simultaneously, so that

    no one
    > > carrier gets put at an unjustified disadvantage. The carriers with poor

    or
    > > spotty coverage will suffer the publicity, but then they deserve to.
    > >

    > You seem to be thinking that there is such a thing as a high quality
    > coverage map. The bottom line is that CDMA cell service (and to a
    > lesser extent GSM service) is not as cut and dried as your local FM
    > radio station.
    >
    > Your local FM station puts out a fixed power signal from a single or
    > few high locations, and is relatively easy to map for the surrounding
    > area.
    >
    > CDMA service, on the other hand, is emanating from lots of low power,
    > relatively low to the ground points. In addition, then methodology is
    > such that the more active users there are for a given cell, the lower
    > the output power and therefore the smaller the effective radius is.
    > It's a function of the need for a low noise floor so that the signal
    > isn't impossible to decipher.
    >
    > So it is very easy to find situations where the first user of a given
    > service can get good service a pretty fair distance from the nearest
    > antenna, but if 20 of his neighbors get the same service and activate
    > their phones, the actual usable radius decreases significantly. It
    > just gets worse if 40 of his neighbors get involved.
    >
    > When I was building cell sites (a LONG time ago), the average one cost
    > $250K, and were NOT a high density version. There was no need for them
    > initially, because there wasn't a customer base yet. We spent $24M
    > (give or take) to cover Fresno, CA, when there were no customers there
    > yet to pay for it. Pretend for a moment that you are responsible for
    > that expenditure, then figure out how long it will take to pay for the
    > initial capital expense at $29.95 per month per person. The numbers
    > are staggering, and don't even cover the cost of operation and on-going
    > maintenance. My educated guess is that updating these same sites to a
    > high density, multi-channel setup would cost over double the initial
    > costs, and the removed equipment could only be used as spares in East
    > Nowhere.
    >
    > You don't even want to know what it costs to build new cell sites these
    > days; everyone is so NIMBY that it costs at least triple what it cost
    > us so that you can disguise the antenna as something else. And that
    > for a site that you can get an approval to build in the first place!
    >
    > I understand the frustration that started this thread. Hell, I worked
    > for one of the carriers, and couldn't get any service at my own house,
    > even though it is only 100 yards from a marina full of people with the
    > right demographics to be cell phone customers. The cost versus
    > technology issues weren't on my side, just like they aren't now.
    >
    > BTW, when I built out my system, I made a well-documented, actually
    > test-proven coverage map that was about 15 ft by 12 ft. We then
    > monitored performance complaints for about 6 months and tried to map
    > the locations. Bottom line: There was no viable method we could find
    > to predict where coverage holes would exist, and with enough time and
    > customers, you could prove that there was virtually nowhere in a given
    > system that hadn't had poor coverage at some time for some reason.
    >
    > Marty



    I can appreciate the costs of a cell tower. I can appreciate the fact that
    it is expensive to fix or build a cell tower for a relatively small amount
    of customers. However, if you can't provide what you're selling, you
    shouldn't advertise in these areas (dead spots here and there excluded).

    And if you are going to advertise there, the carriers (not just Sprint)
    shouldn't be suprised when they have returns. They also shouldn't be so
    quick to charge people $150, or $175 to cancel. If the area is not going to
    be maintained, or if you're covering a large area with a single tower or
    two, and the towers become overloaded to the point that it creates a large
    dead spot, fix the problem or let people out of their contracts. People
    actually buy cell phones to work in certain areas.

    Just my two cents.



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

    cell play Guest

    malebomb@comcast.net (Male Bomb) wrote in article
    <vmi2mvkqgqls40@corp.supernews.com>:
    >
    >
    >
    > > One the things with VZW is they keep telling me they don't have coverage in
    > > certain areas, or it is weak, but the maps all indicate it is well covered.
    > > And they should be, being small population centers with towers within
    > > two-to-three miles... but they keep saying don't expect good coverage. Now
    > > that's a sales technique that car companies should adopt; we just sell the
    > > cars, but don't expect good gas mileage, it's beyond our control. VZW, we
    > > sell the phones, coverage is beyond our control. :)

    >
    > Would you rather have the sales reps lie and tell you the phone will
    > work everywhere? Your bitching about coverage and your going to
    > Cingular GSM, LOL...
    >


    I agree. Cingular GSM???? So you want more coverage and you're going
    to Cingular GSM???? That's a good laugh I needed!!! thanks, good luck.

    CP


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  3. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in message
    news:GW5ab.687$7a1.411@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
    > The whole point of the "code" is the State of California, and possibly New
    > York, and the whole Congress is talking about regulating an unregulated
    > industry because of complaints, contract and the cavalier attitude of
    > cellular companies.
    >
    > My most recent experience with a caviler attitude occurred this weekend

    with
    > VZW. I though my contract ended in November, but the actual date is two
    > weeks hence. Did they give me any reason to stay. Nope! Will I stay,
    > probably not since I own a nice GSM phone and can go to Cingular without a
    > contract.
    >
    > One the things with VZW is they keep telling me they don't have coverage

    in
    > certain areas, or it is weak, but the maps all indicate it is well

    covered.
    > And they should be, being small population centers with towers within
    > two-to-three miles... but they keep saying don't expect good coverage. Now
    > that's a sales technique that car companies should adopt; we just sell the
    > cars, but don't expect good gas mileage, it's beyond our control. VZW, we
    > sell the phones, coverage is beyond our control. :)



    At least they're being honest.
  4. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) 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.


    I don't think that cell companies need to print 100% accurate topo maps
    of coverage areas and dead spots, but somebody working in CS should be
    able to tell you if a particular zip code or town has coverage. When I was a
    Cingular agent, our store was near the SE edge of Cingular's Kansas City
    coverage area (at that time- they've expanded quite a bit since). We
    could never get a straight answer from Cingular as to what towns were in
    the coverage area or not. I used to spend a least one day off a month
    driving through podunk towns calling 611 to see if I had a decent signal-
    crap that I as an agent shouldn't have had to do if the carrier wasn't so
    gawdamned secretive (or just plain lazy).
  5. William Bray

    William Bray Guest

    Isn't that normal?

    "AL" <al145@nospam.hotmail.dot> wrote in article
    <IW5ab.688$7a1.316@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>:
    > Not in the Verizon store I was in today. But I did get a new fantasy story
    > line about why my phone is not working properly. (In other words a new lie
    > to cover yesterdays lie.)
    >
    > AL
    >
    > "johnny rodriguez" <j1r2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:vmh2llngn1vu74@corp.supernews.com...
    > > The mandated maps will appear in stores on September 29th. Temporary
    > > maps should be available in stores today.
    > >

    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  6. The new maps were sent out to locations to accompany the brochures
    recently. The brochures don't have the correct maps as of yet but they
    are being produced now.

    "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. K Mart

    K Mart Guest

    Just so you know, Cingular CSRs now have a tool that shows cell sites
    and good, medium and low coverage areas and that differentiate between
    GSM and TDMA. It's just been given out, so not all CSRs are familiar
    with it, but the info is there.


    BTW... in most cases, how you treat your CSR will determine how far they
    will go to assist you. How willing would you be to go the extra mile for
    an abusive screaming mimi or the confrontational cynic who's only goal
    is to find what you can't do and insist on that? Not very, my friend,
    not very willing at all.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  8. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote in message news:<vmficcobn9r5e0@corp.supernews.com>...

    > 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?


    No, but then again, 3 months into your contract they won't realign the
    satellites blacking out your home from receiving a signal and then point
    to your contract's fine print where it says "there is no guarantee of
    coverage."
  9. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote in message news:<vmfjlkngbchk3f@corp.supernews.com>...
    > Yeah I get the point...but if I were a shrewd consumer I'd visit the
    > areas where I deem coverage critical to my needs, or where I know my old
    > provider didn't meet expectations, to see if the new provider does.


    Great idea, during my two-week/one-month trial period. But what happens
    when the area I deemed "critical" YOU deem "expendable" four months
    later?

    > I'd also be shrewd enough to know that the yahoo Gen Y salesperson that
    > doesn't take their gum out there mouth to talk to me and can't say more
    > than two sentences with out saying "like" probably is only interested in
    > commission and really doesn't know a damn thing about coverage, network
    > performance, or the product the sell.


    Yet YOUR company hired the nipple-pierced clown in the first place! What's
    your message in this thread? That your company's sub-25K/year employees
    can't be trusted and the over 25K's like you don't give a flying shit? Jeez I
    hope I don't own any of your stock!
  10. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:38:34 GMT, nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >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.


    <digression>

    Channel 44 in Chicago did that for a while in the early '80s.

    And before you ask, yes the FCC did decline to renew their license when it
    came up; they had to sell to another company, which was then granted the
    new license (and went Spanish).

    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    --
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "California is proud to be the home of the freeway." - Ronald Reagan
  11. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:de37a2e0.0309172003.3d503606@posting.google.com...
    > blah_blah@blahblah.com (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote in message

    news:<vmficcobn9r5e0@corp.supernews.com>...
    >
    > > 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?

    >
    > No, but then again, 3 months into your contract they won't realign the
    > satellites blacking out your home from receiving a signal and then point
    > to your contract's fine print where it says "there is no guarantee of
    > coverage."


    if you break your cell phone, your carrier won't replace it for free
    either...
    when installing a satellite tv dish, it's wise to locate it an area away
    from being hit.
    no need for realigning unless the satellite moves out of it's orbit.

    i only needed to realign my satellite 2-way system once because the
    installer didn't re-check the alignment after he tightened down the bolts.
    it's a very simple task.
  12. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "David S" <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote in message
    news:go9imvcedt9mk1vsj57pvi6929lg920c6k@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:38:34 GMT, nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) chose to
    > add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    > >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.

    >
    > <digression>
    >
    > Channel 44 in Chicago did that for a while in the early '80s.
    >
    > And before you ask, yes the FCC did decline to renew their license when it
    > came up; they had to sell to another company, which was then granted the
    > new license (and went Spanish).
    >
    > David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    > --
    > http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    > Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    > "California is proud to be the home of the freeway." - Ronald Reagan


    i often wonder how public access cable tv gets away with porn...
  13. PHil_Real

    PHil_Real Guest

    In article <iXgab.34725$NM1.23634@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    "127.0.0.1" <unavailable@spam-me.not> wrote:

    > i often wonder how public access cable tv gets away with porn...


    Likely they don't in Tennessee
  14. "127.0.0.1" wrote:

    >
    > i often wonder how public access cable tv gets away with porn...


    They don't always. We had one here in the Seattle area, and the show
    got raided, and the host arrested, because he had his girlfriend giving
    him BJ's Live on the air. LOL!
  15. Jim Smith

    Jim Smith Guest

    PHil_Real <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in article
    <phil_tape-B1C8AC.15251216092003@news02.west.earthlink.net>:

    > 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.




    As a sales rep, it is my goal to make sales.



    Lying to customers does not make sales. Lying to customers makes
    returns, and makes ex-customers telling all their friends how they were
    cheated. Telling customers the truth, or letting them know I don't
    know, provides them with a much better experience, and gives them
    something positive to share with friends about my company.



    If you come to my kiosk, I can show you a map of your neighborhood,
    listing signal intensity in either TDMA or GSM, and let you know where
    the local towers and dead spots are.



    I have had this support from Cingular since Tuesday morning, and
    appreciate the support. Before that, I shared experiences customers had
    brought back to me, called other sales reps for their experience, and
    emphasized the 15-day return policy. This is much more efficient and
    accurate, and lets me support the customer in avoiding a bad experience
    with Cingular.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  16. Mike James

    Mike James Guest

    Corporate Suites... I just love them... They will say anything, and then
    believe what they are saying... Based on the responses below, we have a
    couple corporate suites trying to justify poor service... Ba daaa ba if
    people use our service, it gets worse... He He He, Ha Ha Ha... If no one
    were to use our service, the maps would be accurate... It's about time
    the coverage maps be made accurate... Look how much the AC Map has
    shrunk... The bad thing is, if you talk to sales or customer service,
    they will lie thru there teeth... Knowingly to keep the customer or for
    new service... I called customer service numerous times about an area
    and was told there were no complaints and that my phone must be
    defective... Later, I found there was no service at all... It's all a
    game... And those who complain about costs and how the customer is
    getting off easy (especially when the company is raking in huge profits)
    better watch out... Those are the people who will create the downfall of
    a company... Once the corporate suites decide the customer comes
    second... Or start lying and start believing their lies... Thats when
    the cookie crumbles... That is why I love this post... There are alot of
    corporate suites who love to justify there lies here because the
    customers are starting to outsmart them in the real world... When a
    company starts saying LOOK HOW MUCH WE SPEND ON YOU, and yet rakes in
    huge profits... That is a good way to tick off a customer... We
    customers don't care... What we want is the service you claim to
    provide... Not lies... Not look at me, I have a new corporate jet... We
    want service as said by sales, customer service, the maps and the
    disclosures...




    "Justin Green" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
    <vmi560i68gmmc2@corp.supernews.com>:
    >
    > "Marty Bose" <martyb@sonic.net> wrote in message
    > news:170920031844544169%martyb@sonic.net...
    > > (snip)
    > >
    > > > Obviously not--cellular has been offered for decades and we still don't

    > have
    > > > access to high-quality coverage maps. In many matters like this one, no
    > > > single
    > > > carrier is willing to be the first (e.g., to publish its actual coverage

    > map),
    > > > because other carriers will take advantage of the first carrier's

    > weaknesses
    > > > without admitting their own weaknesses. A federal regulation is a very

    > simple
    > > > solution to force *all* the carriers to publish simultaneously, so that

    > no one
    > > > carrier gets put at an unjustified disadvantage. The carriers with poor

    > or
    > > > spotty coverage will suffer the publicity, but then they deserve to.
    > > >

    > > You seem to be thinking that there is such a thing as a high quality
    > > coverage map. The bottom line is that CDMA cell service (and to a
    > > lesser extent GSM service) is not as cut and dried as your local FM
    > > radio station.
    > >
    > > Your local FM station puts out a fixed power signal from a single or
    > > few high locations, and is relatively easy to map for the surrounding
    > > area.
    > >
    > > CDMA service, on the other hand, is emanating from lots of low power,
    > > relatively low to the ground points. In addition, then methodology is
    > > such that the more active users there are for a given cell, the lower
    > > the output power and therefore the smaller the effective radius is.
    > > It's a function of the need for a low noise floor so that the signal
    > > isn't impossible to decipher.
    > >
    > > So it is very easy to find situations where the first user of a given
    > > service can get good service a pretty fair distance from the nearest
    > > antenna, but if 20 of his neighbors get the same service and activate
    > > their phones, the actual usable radius decreases significantly. It
    > > just gets worse if 40 of his neighbors get involved.
    > >
    > > When I was building cell sites (a LONG time ago), the average one cost
    > > $250K, and were NOT a high density version. There was no need for them
    > > initially, because there wasn't a customer base yet. We spent $24M
    > > (give or take) to cover Fresno, CA, when there were no customers there
    > > yet to pay for it. Pretend for a moment that you are responsible for
    > > that expenditure, then figure out how long it will take to pay for the
    > > initial capital expense at $29.95 per month per person. The numbers
    > > are staggering, and don't even cover the cost of operation and on-going
    > > maintenance. My educated guess is that updating these same sites to a
    > > high density, multi-channel setup would cost over double the initial
    > > costs, and the removed equipment could only be used as spares in East
    > > Nowhere.
    > >
    > > You don't even want to know what it costs to build new cell sites these
    > > days; everyone is so NIMBY that it costs at least triple what it cost
    > > us so that you can disguise the antenna as something else. And that
    > > for a site that you can get an approval to build in the first place!
    > >
    > > I understand the frustration that started this thread. Hell, I worked
    > > for one of the carriers, and couldn't get any service at my own house,
    > > even though it is only 100 yards from a marina full of people with the
    > > right demographics to be cell phone customers. The cost versus
    > > technology issues weren't on my side, just like they aren't now.
    > >
    > > BTW, when I built out my system, I made a well-documented, actually
    > > test-proven coverage map that was about 15 ft by 12 ft. We then
    > > monitored performance complaints for about 6 months and tried to map
    > > the locations. Bottom line: There was no viable method we could find
    > > to predict where coverage holes would exist, and with enough time and
    > > customers, you could prove that there was virtually nowhere in a given
    > > system that hadn't had poor coverage at some time for some reason.
    > >
    > > Marty

    >
    >
    > I can appreciate the costs of a cell tower. I can appreciate the fact that
    > it is expensive to fix or build a cell tower for a relatively small amount
    > of customers. However, if you can't provide what you're selling, you
    > shouldn't advertise in these areas (dead spots here and there excluded).
    >
    > And if you are going to advertise there, the carriers (not just Sprint)
    > shouldn't be suprised when they have returns. They also shouldn't be so
    > quick to charge people $150, or $175 to cancel. If the area is not going to
    > be maintained, or if you're covering a large area with a single tower or
    > two, and the towers become overloaded to the point that it creates a large
    > dead spot, fix the problem or let people out of their contracts. People
    > actually buy cell phones to work in certain areas.
    >
    > Just my two cents.
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  17. Steve Punter

    Steve Punter Guest

  18. hec merc

    hec merc Guest

    "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
    >
    >
    > hey al, where do you work? can we post things on the internet about how to bother you?


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  19. Spam Buster

    Spam Buster Guest

    "PHil_Real" <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in message
    news:phil_tape-B1C8AC.15251216092003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
    | 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.

    Saying "yes" if you don't know is still lying!

    | 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.

    So, it's OK to lie if you're a sales rep?


    SB
  20. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "Spam Buster" <s_p_a_m__buster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:jBOab.50563$z32.38333@twister.austin.rr.com...
    > "PHil_Real" <phil_tape@email.org> wrote in message
    > news:phil_tape-B1C8AC.15251216092003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
    > | 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.
    >
    > Saying "yes" if you don't know is still lying!
    >
    > | 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.
    >
    > So, it's OK to lie if you're a sales rep?
    >
    >
    > SB



    Not at all. Apparently Sprint has bad coverage in Little Elm and at least
    one store rep knew about it, since his mother also lives in little elm. No
    one else at Sprint would admit any problems with the service there. They
    just don't do that.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?