[slider5634]

I just had a couple of quick legal questions about cellular coverage...

Could it be termed false advertisement if all phones on a cellular network indicated being on said companies network if they are actually connected to partner network towers? If so, could it be grounds for a class action lawsuit against said company?

I'm having some serious issues with my wireless provider. My provider is threatening to shut off my service for using partner coverage too much. I, however, was unaware until I looked at the coverage map that I am living in a partner coverage area. All three of my phones have always indicated that I'm connected to the provider's network, not the partner. As a result of the threat, the provider has now altered my carrier settings to show when I'm on partner coverage in the hopes that I will discontinue use of partner towers. This tells me that they have the ability to tell the user, but intentionally mask it.

This has left me in a very odd situation. My job requires that I have consistent reliable access to my work email and this provider provides the only reliable voice and data in my area. Though the I'm using partner towers in this situation, I will not get service through the partner because they have serious problems with dropping calls in perfect reception to land lines.

I would appreciate any help on this. If you wish to have more detail, please PM me and I will give you the specifics.

Thanks,
slider5634

---

› See More: Legal Questions about Coverage

[tavenger5]

It sounds like they don't want you to connect to their partner's towers because it costs them more money. Do they charge you extra for using those towers; trying to say your phones are roaming?

Is it a smaller localized cellular service? These services mainly depend on larger company towers to provide to their network, so when they advertise that they have that coverage it is true, but no, they shouldn't be allowed to tell you you're not allowed to connect to it's partners towers especially if this is your only means of accessing their network.

Check your contract to see if it specifically states anything about connecting to partner towers and charges for roaming, what is considered roaming, etc. If it specifically states something about this than you can't do anything.

[slider5634]

No, this is one of the larger companies. I really don't care to get into defamation of said company until I know one way or another what I can do. As such, I'm going to leave said companies name out of the conversation.

I have been through my contract. I'm not being charged for use of these towers. My contract explicitly states I'm allowed a 24MB data cap and only 40% usage of partner coverage for voice services. I know there's really nothing I can do about that, though it really makes me mad. Because of my situation, I even called customer service to try and negotiate a change in the cap on my contract so I wouldn't exceed it. They quoted that they wouldn't negotiate a cap change unless I don't use any partner coverage for three months. WTF?!?!?! I live in partner coverage... what do they expect me to do?

When all is said and done, I'm less worried about my particular situation and more worried about the legal ramifications that their coverage implies. Their coverage map clearly shows that I'm in partner coverage area, but all three of my phones indicate that I'm connected to my provider's towers.

I'd like to know if letting users on ANY network think that they're on their provider's towers while connected to partner towers could be termed false advertisement. I believe it could, but I'm not a legal expert and really just would like a second opinion.

I suppose it might have helped if I'd just consulted with a legal dictionary to begin with. Anyway, for those interested...

The Problem:
A wireless provider's phones are programmed to always indicate that they are connected to said provider's towers, even when they are connected to partner towers.

The legal definition of False Advertisement:
To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

Please match the statements below to their coresponding numbers above. How this relates to all users on the wireless providers network:

1)All phones on the providers network are programmed to always indicate that they are connected to said provider's towers, even when they are connected to partner towers.

2)As there is no way to tell who you're connected to, this affects all users under said providers service.

3)User's may think twice about getting service with said provider if they know who's towers they're actually connected to; especially those living in partner coverage only areas.

4)Said provider provides service in the majority of this United States.

5)This will affect different people in different ways, but in my case this false advertisement is basically forcing me to drop said providers service in favor of an inferior providers service. This is costing me extra money that I wouldn't have needed to spend if my provider would have been upfront at the phone end and told me that I was not on their towers.

Needless to say, I'm now seriously considering pursuing legal counsel in this matter.