Want to have fun with customer service? Do this!

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

"AL" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> 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]

---

› See More: Want to have fun with customer service? Do this!

>
> "BlahBlah Blabber"

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

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

The proposed California Law would require 30 days.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:

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

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

"PHil_Real" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And thus the 14 day return policy. Buy it and try it. It's great. The
> > only trouble is, and the maps don't help, but when service or coverage
> > changes for the worse in a given area.
>
> The proposed California Law would require 30 days.
>
> Also what happens if you change jobs, move, graduate, get reassigned,
> get sent overseas, buy a new house; and no longer have coverage?

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

touche on the one liner.

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

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

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


"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "BlahBlah Blabber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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? ****, 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/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
> > totally amazing.
> >
>
>
>
> And what happens if after the return date, coverage degrades in a particular
> area?
>
> Johnny Cocharn anyone? "Return the phones too late, pay to early terminate."
>
>
>
> In addition to providing accurate coverage maps for new customers, carriers
> should keep up with their existing network, and changes to existing service
> areas. That would have been a great standard.
>
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

>The bottom line already they are breaking their pledges and this is an
>industry that needs heavy regulation,

How did you get here? Heavy regulation? Legislatures and Congress
and the FCC making our cell service better? Are you kidding?

Compare the advances in the cell industry to, say, Medicare and SS,
then tell me govt reg will do us good. What a joke. We have hands
down the most vibrant, cost effective cell industry in the world all
things considered. We'll end up easily supporting CDMA and GSM, with
all sorts of cheap high speed data options and gobs of minutes for
peanut prices. Yet you complain that they violate point 2 of a silly
marketing gimmick? Where are your priorities?

Doug

>****, it's hard enough to get an
>accurate and up to date list INTERNALLY, let alone one that's accurate
>for the general public.

Amen.

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

Excellent point, sadly true.

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

Very clever!

>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.

It has gotten to the point where people demand coverage as a
birthright. This is WIRELESS. AM/FM signal drops people live with,
but with phones there's supposed to be some magic ability to never
lose a call and have hyper accurate coverage maps. If you want
reliability, go wired. If you want the convenience of a cell, face
the facts that radio communication is not foolproof. If you want kick
butt reception with the current system, research and invest in an
external antenna. Get off your lazy butt and do something rather than
complain.

Doug

>> The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
>> totally amazing.
>
>And what happens if after the return date, coverage degrades in a particular
>area?

I know for certain T-Mo will allow early termination if coverage
degrades. It has happened to an associate. I know T-Mo has
outstanding CS, but there's no reason enough users making a ruckus
can't get the others to do the same. T-Mo's pressure alone is causing
a shake up of sorts in many areas.
>
>Johnny Cocharn anyone? "Return the phones too late, pay to early terminate."

Damn, now that was seriously funny!

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

I mean really, we have so many choices. Why do hyper accurate
coverage maps even matter? It's interesting to note for a while, but
things change so fast that the data becomes obsolete and irrelevant.
6 months from now the rollout of 850 GSM will change the landscape
again. Besides, we're not talking about buying a house. $40-50/mo
for a year, just change carriers later and move on! Dang.

Doug

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

"AL" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> 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]

>> And thus the 14 day return policy. Buy it and try it. It's great. The
>
>The proposed California Law would require 30 days.

The People's Republic of California gets involved now, great. Just
what we need.

If the indistry offered 30 from the start, the politburo would require
60. Double whatever just to get their hands in to regulate. Next the
politburo will require reduced rate service for the poor, which the
normal folk like us will have to pay for. What after that? A Prop
103 style initiative to reduce rates across the board?

Doug

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "PHil_Real" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > And thus the 14 day return policy. Buy it and try it. It's great. The
> > > only trouble is, and the maps don't help, but when service or coverage
> > > changes for the worse in a given area.
> >
> > The proposed California Law would require 30 days.
> >
> > Also what happens if you change jobs, move, graduate, get reassigned,
> > get sent overseas, buy a new house; and no longer have coverage?
>
> My point exactly. A good standard would have been to assure a good faith
> effort to maintain coverage in the areas where they advertise it.
> Personally, I think 14 days is plenty, but it's what happens when service
> changes after the return period is over that can be problematic.


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

If coverage changes because of actions or inactions by cellular carrier
(like happened to Justin), they should be let out of contract in
exchange for returning the phone and all fees waived, and service
prorated to that day.

No. Who's Cletis? Related to Cooter?

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

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

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

Or is that capitolized? Hmmmm





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


PHil_Real <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:
>
> > You show a lack of industry understanding...I work in the industry for a
> > major, undisclosed, player. I'm not in customer service, sales or
> > network and I'm not some 25K a year employee.
>
> You do sound like a High School dropout with all that bad language. Are
> you Cletis?

[posted via phonescoop.com]

No Cletis here....


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


PHil_Real <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:
>
> > touche on the one liner.
> >
> > report the problem to carrier, its in their interest to fix problems and
> > are usually receptive to feedback if it's not some yahoo that calls in
> > because of one dropped call.
>
> > BTW - the Terms and Conditions of your contract are fully disclosed to
> > you at the point of sale and contain clauses that outline your concern
> > with service degradation. If you don't like the carriers T&C shop
> > around to another.
>
> Must be Cletis. Any regular to Sprintpcs newsgroup would know all that
> was done, and knows nothing was done until the customer wrote his
> State's Attorney General.
>
>
> Sprint's unenforceable T&C say (in only slightly different words) " we
> guarantee nothing." Luckily there is the common law principle of
> "Fitness for Purpose".
>
> As someone elegantly wrote in the SprintPCS newsgroup a set of T&C is a
> lawyers's wish list, and much of it is unenforceable unless the customer
> is talked out of complaining because of the text of the T&C.

[posted via phonescoop.com]