Online coverage maps updated

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprīntpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, and
> > > violates one of its main points.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't that for the CTIA to decide, since it's the certifying
> > authority? Or are you now also more of an expert than the experts?
>
> It would be nice if a map **EVER** actually showed all the known dead
> spots, or you think it's OK to have dishonest maps?

With the number of variables there are when it comes to trying to
figure out cellular coverage, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get 100% accurate
maps.

The coverage area is constantly changing, as more people use the
tower, that tower's coverage area shrinks. When trees start to get
their springtime foliage, that interferes with the network. New
construction, other RF interference, weather, traffic, radio stations,
etc.. all that can affect the coverage.

It is difficult enough for ANY carrier to show a semi-accurate map
with all the known interferences, such as landscape (hills,
mountains), roads, waterways, buildings, airports etc..


If this is such a huge issue with you, how come I don't see you
complaining about this on the other newsgroups? Or is it just not OK
for Sprint and it's OK for everyone else?

---

› See More: Online coverage maps updated

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprīntpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, and
> > > violates one of its main points.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't that for the CTIA to decide, since it's the certifying
> > authority? Or are you now also more of an expert than the experts?
>
> It would be nice if a map **EVER** actually showed all the known dead
> spots, or you think it's OK to have dishonest maps?

And before you start to say you do, I did a search, you've only
complained about it in the SprintPCS, AT&T, and Cingular newsgroups.

What about Alltel, Nextel, Roger's ATT, Verizon? I don't see any
complaints in there, are you saying their coverage maps are 100%
accurate? If you say yes, you're lying.

In article <rmarkoff-074574.12251620042004
@news02.east.earthlink.net>, [email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> O/Siris <0siris@spr=EEntpcs.com> wrote:
>=20
> > In article <[email protected]>,=
=20
> > [email protected] says...
> > > SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, =
and=20
> > > violates one of its main points.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Isn't that for the CTIA to decide, since it's the certifying=20
> > authority? Or are you now also more of an expert than the experts?
>=20
> It would be nice if a map **EVER** actually showed all the known dead=20
> spots, or you think it's OK to have dishonest maps?
>=20

You didn't answer the question, Phillie. You claim it's a violation=20
of the CTIA guidelines. Isn't that for the CTIA to decide?

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them