Sprint's customer service gets into Business Week

The Sprint article is on page 54 of the March 3 issue, just out.

There are other articles about "Consumer Vigilantes" and the GetHuman
network. Plus an article about 25 exemplary customer service departments.
Two are airlines, and two are car makers. None are phone companies. The
entire issue is about customer service.

Of course, companies that exceed expectations in everything else can get
away with mediocre customer service -- they seldom have to console unhappy
customers, because they have so few. Their cell service has no dead spots,
the phones create delight, not disappointment, the bills are always clear
and correct, and the contracts are more flexible than the competition's.

Sprint has a predictable dead spot on the interstate between Baltimore and
Annapolis plus many others.

Tom

---

› See More: Sprint's customer service gets into Business Week

Wake up and be educated!!

All cell phone companies have dead spots and no cell phone company is better
than the others. They all have this strengths and weaknesses. I am sick of
seeing messages from uninformed folks that are bashing Sprint. I will state
one more time for everyone's edification:

The best cell phone service is the one that works well in the areas that you
work, live, play, and frequent.

Does that make sense or should I state it more clearly?



"Tom C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Sprint article is on page 54 of the March 3 issue, just out.
>
> There are other articles about "Consumer Vigilantes" and the GetHuman
> network. Plus an article about 25 exemplary customer service departments.
> Two are airlines, and two are car makers. None are phone companies. The
> entire issue is about customer service.
>
> Of course, companies that exceed expectations in everything else can get
> away with mediocre customer service -- they seldom have to console unhappy
> customers, because they have so few. Their cell service has no dead spots,
> the phones create delight, not disappointment, the bills are always clear
> and correct, and the contracts are more flexible than the competition's.
>
> Sprint has a predictable dead spot on the interstate between Baltimore and
> Annapolis plus many others.
>
> Tom
>
>
>

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:58:54 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Wake up and be educated!!
>
>All cell phone companies have dead spots and no cell phone company is better
>than the others. They all have this strengths and weaknesses. I am sick of
>seeing messages from uninformed folks that are bashing Sprint. I will state
>one more time for everyone's edification:
>
>The best cell phone service is the one that works well in the areas that you
>work, live, play, and frequent.
>
>Does that make sense or should I state it more clearly?
>
>
>
>

But as myriad posts here prove, Sprint does have more dead spots,
largely because its 1900 MHz band has less coverage per cell tower
than does the 850 Mhz band of AT&T and Verizon.

You can't ignore the physics.

Ron wrote:
> But as myriad posts here prove, Sprint does have more dead spots,
> largely because its 1900 MHz band has less coverage per cell tower
> than does the 850 Mhz band of AT&T and Verizon.
>
> You can't ignore the physics.

Apparently YOU are. Where do you come up with the idea that 1900 has
greater free space propagation loss than 850?

You can't ignore the physics. All radio waves follow the same laws.
Double your distance, the signal gets four times less.

Ron <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:58:54 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Wake up and be educated!!
>>
>>All cell phone companies have dead spots and no cell phone company is
>>better than the others. They all have this strengths and weaknesses. I
>>am sick of seeing messages from uninformed folks that are bashing
>>Sprint. I will state one more time for everyone's edification:
>>
>>The best cell phone service is the one that works well in the areas
>>that you work, live, play, and frequent.
>>
>>Does that make sense or should I state it more clearly?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But as myriad posts here prove, Sprint does have more dead spots,

Going back over the last six months, I don't see that being a true
statement.


> largely because its 1900 MHz band has less coverage per cell tower
> than does the 850 Mhz band of AT&T and Verizon.
>
> You can't ignore the physics.

Nor can you ignore that coverage in the US cellualr market is a function of
tower placement, not frequency used.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:56:54 -0600, DTC <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ron wrote:
>> But as myriad posts here prove, Sprint does have more dead spots,
>> largely because its 1900 MHz band has less coverage per cell tower
>> than does the 850 Mhz band of AT&T and Verizon.
>>
>> You can't ignore the physics.
>
>Apparently YOU are. Where do you come up with the idea that 1900 has
>greater free space propagation loss than 850?
>
>You can't ignore the physics. All radio waves follow the same laws.
>Double your distance, the signal gets four times less.


In a vacuum, yes, unfortunately in the atmosphere the attenuation is
different.

Ron wrote:
>> You can't ignore the physics.
>> Apparently YOU are. Where do you come up with the idea that 1900 has
>> greater free space propagation loss than 850?
>>
>> You can't ignore the physics. All radio waves follow the same laws.
>> Double your distance, the signal gets four times less.
>
>
> In a vacuum, yes, unfortunately in the atmosphere the attenuation is
> different.

Nope...not true. Not counting atmospheric diffraction, all radio
waves propagate equally.

That is BS! England is all 1800 MHz and their cell phone system is excellent
because it is deployed properly. Don't believe all of the hype that you
read. Here in Orange County California, Sprint works better than Verizon. I
know because I have had them both in the past several years.


"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:58:54 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Wake up and be educated!!
>>
>>All cell phone companies have dead spots and no cell phone company is
>>better
>>than the others. They all have this strengths and weaknesses. I am sick of
>>seeing messages from uninformed folks that are bashing Sprint. I will
>>state
>>one more time for everyone's edification:
>>
>>The best cell phone service is the one that works well in the areas that
>>you
>>work, live, play, and frequent.
>>
>>Does that make sense or should I state it more clearly?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But as myriad posts here prove, Sprint does have more dead spots,
> largely because its 1900 MHz band has less coverage per cell tower
> than does the 850 Mhz band of AT&T and Verizon.
>
> You can't ignore the physics.

Thankyou for stating the truth. There are too many folks talking trash here.

"DTC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ron wrote:
>> But as myriad posts here prove, Sprint does have more dead spots,
>> largely because its 1900 MHz band has less coverage per cell tower
>> than does the 850 Mhz band of AT&T and Verizon.
>>
>> You can't ignore the physics.
>
> Apparently YOU are. Where do you come up with the idea that 1900 has
> greater free space propagation loss than 850?
>
> You can't ignore the physics. All radio waves follow the same laws.
> Double your distance, the signal gets four times less.

>> largely because its 1900 MHz band has less coverage per cell tower
>> than does the 850 Mhz band of AT&T and Verizon.
>>
>> You can't ignore the physics.
>
> Nor can you ignore that coverage in the US cellualr market is a function
> of
> tower placement, not frequency used.

AMEN!!

DTC wrote:

> Nope...not true. Not counting atmospheric diffraction, all radio
> waves propagate equally.


They do in free space, the funny convention of measuring propagation
loss using antennas having frequency dependent size notwithstanding.
If we really did operate our mobile devices in an inverse square
environment like free space, we wouldn't be having all these discussions
about coverage because the existing hardware could already supply it.

However in real paths and environments the attenuation is much greater
than for unobstructed space and the attenuation also has a frequency
dependent term on top of that.

Over path lengths on the order of typical cell diameters, it is common
practice to attribute an exponent of 3-4 instead of 2 to attenuation in
suburban environments. That is, instead of getting 6 dB for doubling the
distance you may get 12. Some paths are worse than this.

Similarly, the frequency dependent part of the equation in
suburban/rural environments makes things worse than LOS. The common
rule of thumb is that 1900 MHz is about 10 dB worse than 850 MHz in that
regard. But because things are dying so fast apart from the frequency
dependency, it *doesn't* mean that 850 MHz cell diameters are all *that*
much greater than 1900. they're generally bigger but by how much
depends upon the particular scenario.

Considering the exponent isn't a very useful way to determine the
ultimate degradation of real paths relative to LOS, in my opinion, since
it doesn't give an immediate picture of how badly signals get lost, just
the rate of the loss.

A more direct gauge of how bad things are due to greater-than-LOS
attenuation can be had by considering how far a pair of typical mobile
phones could talk if they were in completely free space. The answer may
surprise you, it's more on the order of 2000 miles then the 2 miles at
which you may experience 'not enough bars'. That 1000:1 ratio
represents a million times (60 dB) increase in the loss over free space
radio.

g

see COST231/Hata, Lee and similar propagation models for more details if
you are interested.

g wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>
>> Nope...not true. Not counting atmospheric diffraction, all radio
>> waves propagate equally.
>
>
> They do in free space, the funny convention of measuring propagation
> loss using antennas having frequency dependent size notwithstanding.

Nope, there is no difference in free space attenuation.

From a previous thread...

> DTC wrote:
>
>> Path loss is not frequency dependent. Antenna aperture is.
>>
>> That applies with true free space (earth to satellite) or greater
>> than several Fresnel zone clearances.
>>
>> However you have terrestrial propagation loses where your Fresnel
>> clearance is often less than one zone.. Which is a whole 'nuther
>> animal.
>
> Path loss, as usually defined; the freespace loss between two isotropic
> antennas, IS frequency dependent. However, since no energy is really
> lost in free space,

True, there is no energy "lost in space"; its dispersed over a larger
area such that the flux falling on a given area is smaller. It is
frequency dependent only in the sense of antenna aperture; not space loss.

> However, there are some additional terms related to real (indirect)
> paths. For one thing foliage and obstruction loss shows a frequency
> dependency. Hardwood forests have on the order of .25 dB/foot loss at
> 2.5 GHz and around .5 dB/foot loss at 5 GHz. Between 850 and PCS
> frequencies there is also a difference.

That would be the near earth terrestrial loses or attenuation. During
a seasonal test, we noted greater than expected losses at 5.8 Gig and
the predicted losses at 2.4 Gig. Several weeks later when the prairie
grass approached 2.5 inches, the loss at 5.8 Gig was as predicted,
but the loss at 2.4 was greater than before and greater than predicted.
Generally, we see greater losses at 5.8 when shooting through trees,
but then we make sure our antennas are well over mid-point tree lines.

> Fresnel zone issues do not
> relate here, since they imply a physical LOS but with nearby obstruction.

True, they do not relate as I said "That applies with true free space
(earth to satellite) or greater than several Fresnel zone clearances,"
where an earth to satellite would not even have an Fresnel zone excursions.
But with typical cellular communications you do indeed have Fresnel zone
incursions.

Posted sometime ago in another NG:

In the past I argued the higher the frequency, the greater the
attenuation, but failed to note I was referring to terrestrial
propagation...but I'll get to that later.

Lets look at the traditional free space loss formula:
Path loss in dB = 32.4 + 20 log(f) + 20 log(d), where f is frequency
in MHz and d is distance in miles.

It implies increasing the frequency will increase the path loss
(greater attenuation). When you run a plot at 2.4 GHz and one at 5.8
GHz, you'll find there is 7.7 dB more loss at 5.8 GHz.

[added for clarity...
However its the decreased antenna aperture that accounts for this
"lose", not free-space attenuation.]

If you go backwards in the equation and see how it is derived, you'll
find the capture area (antenna aperture) defined as wavelength squared
divided by four times Pi.

For example - Lets take two simple dipoles for 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz
with the ends of the dipoles at 2.45 inches and 1 inch apart
respectively. Using the above formula, we find the capture areas are
1.912 and .318 square inches. Divide the area of the first antenna by
the second antenna's area and you'll get 6, or six times smaller (so
you would express it as a negative 6)

Convert -6 to dB and you get -7.7, the same loss number you go in the
plots you ran above.

Therefore, there really isn't greater attenuation as you increase the
frequency, rather the antenna is "less sensitive".

---------------------------------------

Now...on to terrestrial losses.

I placed a 2.4 GHz and a 5.8 GHz transmitter with simple vertical
dipole antennas on the output connectors at 500 feet up a tower and
measured the signal level from another 200 foot tower nearby with
simple vertical dipole antennas. This is as close as you'll get to
true free space on the face of the earth. As expected, the 5.8 GHz
signal was 7.7 dB lower. I had similar signal differences from several
test points with antennas on a forty foot mast and a clear line of
site.

I ran the tests again at several locations in the county with the
transmitters on a forty foot mast and ten foot mast for the receiver
antennas. I saw some additional loss from trees as expected and a
greater loss at 5.8 GHz. The additional loss varied with the terrain
and foliage. The conclusion would be there are greater terrestrial
losses at higher frequencies.

Eventually I'll get a system set up where I can measure hourly signal
levels from several other WISP's access points from miles away over a
year period. I suspect I'll see the same results my casual testing has
shown...path fading is worst for a few weeks in the spring and a few
weeks in the fall, and about an hour after sun up after the sun warms
the earth and you have a layer of warm air under the cooler morning
air, and an hour before sun down when the air starts to cool off and
drift into low spots under the still warm evening air.

> Nope, there is no difference in free space attenuation.
>

Apparently you aren't understanding what I'm saying.
I agree, there is no difference in free space, apparent difference is
all about the definition and antenna aperture.

However, for REAL (non LOS) terrestrial paths, there is not only a great
deal more attenuation but ALSO a frequency dependent term. This is the
world we live in.

Searching on COST231 (for example) will give you values for the terms.

g

Maybe it will cover more sq. mi. but it will not handle as many
simultaneous calls. So the number of 800 MHz. antenna sites needed per
sq. mi. in an urban area, could be higher.

Ron wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:58:54 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Wake up and be educated!!
>>
>> All cell phone companies have dead spots and no cell phone company is better
>> than the others. They all have this strengths and weaknesses. I am sick of
>> seeing messages from uninformed folks that are bashing Sprint. I will state
>> one more time for everyone's edification:
>>
>> The best cell phone service is the one that works well in the areas that you
>> work, live, play, and frequent.
>>
>> Does that make sense or should I state it more clearly?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But as myriad posts here prove, Sprint does have more dead spots,
> largely because its 1900 MHz band has less coverage per cell tower
> than does the 850 Mhz band of AT&T and Verizon.
>
> You can't ignore the physics.