Some sincere words to/with Sprint guru's

"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:g63tf.2509$V.646@fed1read04...
> Begin_Rant_Mode:
>
> The question is "Why in the Hell can't Sprint give this customer a
> STRAIGHT ANSWER"? I
<snipped>
> End_Rant_Mode:

Mij, did the OP say that he had been in contact with SPCS prior to his post?
No, he didn't.

Did the OP submit a Trouble Ticket report to SPCS either by phone or by
email? No, he didn't.

He came in here to ask who to contact @ SPCS to report the problem.
Instructions were provided to him here, from yours truly and others, and a
pretty good description of the area and the problems involved from FWIW.

So quit with your ranting on posts where the rants don't apply.

Bob

---

› See More: Some sincere words to/with Sprint guru's

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>

> Bob,
>
> I'm pretty familiar with the modern cell site zoning regulations in Los
> Angeles city (which includes the area in question here) and I don't
> think they allow cell towers to be built on private residential zoned
> property anymore. Some cities/counties do but not LA. So you can't
> just say "here build a tower on my property" as that won't fly in NIMBY
> areas.

Maybe Larry, but that's what appealing to the zoning authorities is all
about. Laurel Canyon is not just any place, like the flatlands of LA proper.
Lots of places in LC to hide a disguised tower.

Bob

What they normally do on Laurel Canyon is attach micr-cells to city
power poles and pay the city lease money. I don't think I've ever seen
any on public property along there and I doubt the city would even
allow it.

Larry,

That is the problem in a nutshell:

"There's
> nothing Sprint can do about this and customer service/tech support will
> likely not have the ability to even know that this happened as they
> have no ties whatsoever to the RF dept. who's in charge of the network
> operations."

Verizon has this level of internal communication. Sprint could also have
this level of comminication if they chose to do so.

Regards,

-mij

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff,
>
> Like someone else said, I'm thinking what happened is that Sprint lost
> their lease for a cell site or two that used to cover the area. Once
> the lease is up and the property owner doesn't want to renew (for
> whatever reason) the tower must come down. It happens. There's
> nothing Sprint can do about this and customer service/tech support will
> likely not have the ability to even know that this happened as they
> have no ties whatsoever to the RF dept. who's in charge of the network
> operations. They normally will try to find a replacement site but in
> today's NIMBY world it just doesn't happen as quickly as they want it
> to. Some sites that go down never get replaced. Sometimes there's
> simply no where to put a tower.
>

Agreed. It would be nice if Sprint developed a new system so that
customer service/tech support could have communication to the RF
dept/NOTC at all times. I once had a Sprint network operations guy say
that he had never seen a customer complaint wind up on his desk because
the dept. is shielded from that sort of thing.

[email protected] wrote:
> in today's NIMBY world...

Subscribers ***** and moan about having a tower in the neighboood, but
at same time ***** and moan about no coverage while point to some AM
broadcast tower (sitting on an insulating ceramic base) in the distance
and say, "Why can't you use THAT tower?"