Want to have fun with customer service? Do this!

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

---

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

"AL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[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

Those maps are as much an artifact of the advertising department as the
television commercials or billboards are. They are simply taking real data
and splashing some pretty red on it to make it more aesthetically appealing.


Tom Veldhouse

What timeframe did the companies give for having all of their printed
collateral replaced with all new maps?

--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user


"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]

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "AL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[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
>
> Those maps are as much an artifact of the advertising department as the
> television commercials or billboards are. They are simply taking real
data
> and splashing some pretty red on it to make it more aesthetically
appealing.
>
>
> Tom Veldhouse


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.

Al-

Your are a complete dip ****. 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 **** 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 ****.
--
The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
totally amazing.


"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]

Both of you are amazing.
Me too... amazingly I read through both of your posts.
Mike



"BlahBlah Blabber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Al-

Your are a complete dip ****. 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 **** 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 ****.
--
The trivial wireless concerns of certain segments of the population is
totally amazing.


"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]

"BlahBlah Blabber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Al-
>
> Your are a complete dip ****. 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 **** 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 ****.
> --
> 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

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

> 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.

SprintPCS says the following on its website:

Service area maps approximate our service areas based on
computer-generated radio-frequency coverage projections and information
provided by third parties, but are not a guarantee of service
availability. Actual coverage, quality and availability of coverage may
vary based on network problems, signal strength, your equipment,
terrain, weather and other limitations or conditions. Planned service
areas are subject to change. Local service in some areas is managed and
provided under contract with Sprint by independent Affiliates.



An argument could be made that it is at variance with the new industry
code.

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

> 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.


I think customers expect a map that the industry code says the companies
will provide, and there are ample posts here to show that the real world
is often widely at variance with the published maps, and hence was the
reason for the new industry code, which SprintPCS has yet to catch up to.

"PHil_Real" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> SprintPCS says the following on its website:
>
> Service area maps approximate our service areas based on
> computer-generated radio-frequency coverage projections and information
> provided by third parties, but are not a guarantee of service
> availability. Actual coverage, quality and availability of coverage may
> vary based on network problems, signal strength, your equipment,
> terrain, weather and other limitations or conditions. Planned service
> areas are subject to change. Local service in some areas is managed and
> provided under contract with Sprint by independent Affiliates.
>
>
>
> An argument could be made that it is at variance with the new industry
> code.

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.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> 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.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Those maps are as much an artifact of the advertising department as the
> television commercials or billboards are. They are simply taking real data
> and splashing some pretty red on it to make it more aesthetically appealing.
>
>
> Tom Veldhouse

Marketing Department that is. Take a minimum of data, and a maximum of
extrapolation?? However Sprint brags about being AWARDED as a
Particpant in the new industry code, and yet doesn't follow it or give a
reason or timetable for when new maps should be expected.

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.


"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "BlahBlah Blabber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Al-
> >
> > Your are a complete dip ****. 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 **** 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 ****.
> > --
> > 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]

"PHil_Real" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (BlahBlah Blabber) wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> I think customers expect a map that the industry code says the
companies
> will provide, and there are ample posts here to show that the real
world
> is often widely at variance with the published maps, and hence was
the
> reason for the new industry code, which SprintPCS has yet to catch
up to.

Uhhh, Phillippe, no wait a minute, you changed your ID to Richard ...
uhhh, that's not it ... that's right, you changed your ID again to P.
Reality ... damn, you changed that one too, to PHil Real, the original
poster did not mention what date those brochures were printed up.
Could have been an old one. By the way, the OP was talking about
Verizon.

The problem with seeing maps are that coverage areas change on a
daily, weekly & monthly basis, as mentioned previously by other
posters, including the above along with other influences, and it
happens with all the providers, not just SPCS, Verizon, or anyone
else.

Bob

"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.