My Sprint PCS Horror Story

propellerhead <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Did you not notice the weak signal during the two week trial period?

No, the service was actually fine from December through about the
first of June. At the point I started having really bad troubles, the
14 day period was long since gone.

---

› See More: My Sprint PCS Horror Story

SprintPCS Tech <[email protected]> wrote:

> I cannot honestly say if Verizon's PRL does the same thing as
> SprintPCS', I can only assume (and we all know what happens when we
> assume..).
>
> If it is the same as Sprint's, then it will not effect dropped calls.

Of course it doesn't. Verizon's PRLs serve exactly the same function as
other carriers' PRLs. The only time it would affect coverage is if they add
towers and use a different SID, or if they change roaming partners and update
the PRL as a result. But this area is all part of Verizon's Los Angeles SID
and always has been, and it's always been native VZW coverage. (Same for
Sprint, actually, IIRC.)

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

[email protected] (justin) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>> Yeah, I bought those phones last Sunday, August 17th. They didn't
> improve the signal I was able to get in my area. I've already missed
> calls out the wazoo. I'm returning them tomorrow. The phone itself
> is badass, thought. Just wished they could grab a signal. My first
> test of them when I got home was to walk outside and check the
> voicemail for the call I missed on the way home. It took me three
> tries to get through. I think it's just a tower overload condition,
> although, like I said, I'm no expert.
>

OK, so you've had 2 LG 1010s, 2 1100s, and 2 8100s none seemed to work
well in your area.

My wote is for a coverage / capacity issue. Jopefully someone at
network ops has looked at your situation, hopefully noone else will have
to go though what you did.

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[email protected] (justin) wrote in article
> P.S. - Did you actually pull up my account? It would be interesting
> to see the store's write-up on the police incident... nah, on second
> thought I gotta put this thing behind me, nevermind.

I did, and I can't repeat what is in the notes, even a court order can't
release them.

Lets just say, I did see it was going on for a long time.

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

> [email protected] (justin) wrote in article
> > P.S. - Did you actually pull up my account? It would be interesting
> > to see the store's write-up on the police incident... nah, on second
> > thought I gotta put this thing behind me, nevermind.
>
> I did, and I can't repeat what is in the notes, even a court order can't
> release them.
>
> Lets just say, I did see it was going on for a long time.

Well tell us, do the notes substanitate what Justin was saying, or were
the Sprint folks doing a lot of CYA ?

Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> SprintPCS Tech <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I cannot honestly say if Verizon's PRL does the same thing as
> > SprintPCS', I can only assume (and we all know what happens when we
> > assume..).
> >
> > If it is the same as Sprint's, then it will not effect dropped calls.
>
> Of course it doesn't. Verizon's PRLs serve exactly the same function as
> other carriers' PRLs. The only time it would affect coverage is if they add
> towers and use a different SID, or if they change roaming partners and update
> the PRL as a result. But this area is all part of Verizon's Los Angeles SID
> and always has been, and it's always been native VZW coverage. (Same for
> Sprint, actually, IIRC.)
>

But...

Since then that Verizon's PRL and Sprint's PRL does the same thing, its
an advantage to Verizon and *could* help with dropped calls.

The US is blanketed with 800MHz analog, which is the backbone of
Verizon's network. So, they pick up a new roaming SID, which may
improve the 800MHz coverage they have, most of the time, Verizon eats up
the analog roaming charges, you may be 'roaming' but not know it.

How is this different?

Sprint PCS is the only company in the US (other than their affiliates
and Verizon out west and Alaska (and possibly Hawaii?)) that uses the
1900MHz CDMA. The spectrum is so full that the FCC isn't issuing any
more lisences for it (that might also be contributing to coverage
issues, FCC not allowing towers up?), so most of the added SIDs are
still in 800MHz analog, not effecting Sprint PCS's network at all
(unless you are roaming)...

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

SprintPCS Tech <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Since then that Verizon's PRL and Sprint's PRL does the same thing, its
> an advantage to Verizon and *could* help with dropped calls.
>
> The US is blanketed with 800MHz analog, which is the backbone of
> Verizon's network. So, they pick up a new roaming SID, which may
> improve the 800MHz coverage they have, most of the time, Verizon eats up
> the analog roaming charges, you may be 'roaming' but not know it.

OK. But my problem, like many other customers of any of the cellular
carriers, is that I am on the edge of coverage and am having trouble placing
calls in MY HOME SID. In which case, unless they set up another SID that
covers the portion of San Bernardino County where almost no one lives, a PRL
update does me no good.

> Sprint PCS is the only company in the US (other than their affiliates
> and Verizon out west and Alaska (and possibly Hawaii?)) that uses the
> 1900MHz CDMA.

Not true. Sprint PCS is the only MAJOR carrier that uses 1900 CDMA.
The flat-rate unlimited prepaid wireless providers - Cricket and MetroPCS
in most of the big cities, along with Northcoast PCS in Cleveland - all
use 1900 CDMA.

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> > I did, and I can't repeat what is in the notes, even a court order can't
> > release them.
> >
> > Lets just say, I did see it was going on for a long time.
>
> Well tell us, do the notes substanitate what Justin was saying, or were
> the Sprint folks doing a lot of CYA ?

From the perspective I've had (the empllyees'), it looks like it was
going both ways (usualy it would look towards Sprint PCS's way).

I'd say thats a good thing.

Besides, there are 3 sides to every story, "your's", "mine" and "the
truth".

I'm sure parts of Junstin's post were exaggerated (we all do that), and
I'm sure some of the posts from the employee notes were exaggerated
(moreso in the end). Somewhere in the middle, is the truth.

I do se consistances betweek Justin's post and the notes, along with
trouble tickets logged etc..

I'd say its more in Justin's favor than in Sprint PCS's fover, but there
was a lot of CYOA going on.

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

>
>
> Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > > I did, and I can't repeat what is in the notes, even a court order can't
> > > release them.
> > >
> > > Lets just say, I did see it was going on for a long time.
> >
> > Well tell us, do the notes substanitate what Justin was saying, or were
> > the Sprint folks doing a lot of CYA ?
>
> From the perspective I've had (the empllyees'), it looks like it was
> going both ways (usualy it would look towards Sprint PCS's way).
>
> I'd say thats a good thing.
>
> Besides, there are 3 sides to every story, "your's", "mine" and "the
> truth".
>
> I'm sure parts of Junstin's post were exaggerated (we all do that), and
> I'm sure some of the posts from the employee notes were exaggerated
> (moreso in the end). Somewhere in the middle, is the truth.
>
> I do se consistances betweek Justin's post and the notes, along with
> trouble tickets logged etc..
>
> I'd say its more in Justin's favor than in Sprint PCS's fover, but there
> was a lot of CYOA going on.


Finally the truth. Sprint lied.

Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:
>> > I'd say its more in Justin's favor than in Sprint PCS's fover, but there
> > was a lot of CYOA going on.
>
>
> Finally the truth. Sprint lied.

I only saw 2 places that could be a "lie"

1) Where they said the store could and would replace his 1010s for
5350s. That is against policy, but a lot of customer service reps say
that just to get people off the phone, or they're unaware of the store's
policy (either still isn't an excuse for saying that)

2) Where they said a dual band phone and/or a software/PRL update would
help, but there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding these two
issues. I've even techs in the store say that, and unfortunately both
cases are not true (only exception is the 7058 update for the Motorola
startac style phones and that update was over 2 years ago).

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

>
>
> Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:
> >> > I'd say its more in Justin's favor than in Sprint PCS's fover, but there
> > > was a lot of CYOA going on.
> >
> >
> > Finally the truth. Sprint lied.
>
> I only saw 2 places that could be a "lie"
>
> 1) Where they said the store could and would replace his 1010s for
> 5350s. That is against policy, but a lot of customer service reps say
> that just to get people off the phone, or they're unaware of the store's
> policy (either still isn't an excuse for saying that)
>
> 2) Where they said a dual band phone and/or a software/PRL update would
> help, but there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding these two
> issues. I've even techs in the store say that, and unfortunately both
> cases are not true (only exception is the 7058 update for the Motorola
> startac style phones and that update was over 2 years ago).

2 places this person's problems, etc, etc, etc.

Verizon in WI and FL are hardly "out west".


SprintPCS Tech wrote:
> Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>SprintPCS Tech <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I cannot honestly say if Verizon's PRL does the same thing as
>>>SprintPCS', I can only assume (and we all know what happens when we
>>>assume..).
>>>
>>>If it is the same as Sprint's, then it will not effect dropped calls.
>>
>>Of course it doesn't. Verizon's PRLs serve exactly the same function as
>>other carriers' PRLs. The only time it would affect coverage is if they add
>>towers and use a different SID, or if they change roaming partners and update
>>the PRL as a result. But this area is all part of Verizon's Los Angeles SID
>>and always has been, and it's always been native VZW coverage. (Same for
>>Sprint, actually, IIRC.)
>>
>
>
> But...
>
> Since then that Verizon's PRL and Sprint's PRL does the same thing, its
> an advantage to Verizon and *could* help with dropped calls.
>
> The US is blanketed with 800MHz analog, which is the backbone of
> Verizon's network. So, they pick up a new roaming SID, which may
> improve the 800MHz coverage they have, most of the time, Verizon eats up
> the analog roaming charges, you may be 'roaming' but not know it.
>
> How is this different?
>
> Sprint PCS is the only company in the US (other than their affiliates
> and Verizon out west and Alaska (and possibly Hawaii?)) that uses the
> 1900MHz CDMA. The spectrum is so full that the FCC isn't issuing any
> more lisences for it (that might also be contributing to coverage
> issues, FCC not allowing towers up?), so most of the added SIDs are
> still in 800MHz analog, not effecting Sprint PCS's network at all
> (unless you are roaming)...
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:
> >> > I'd say its more in Justin's favor than in Sprint PCS's fover, but there
> > > was a lot of CYOA going on.
> >
> >
> > Finally the truth. Sprint lied.
>
> I only saw 2 places that could be a "lie"
>
> 1) Where they said the store could and would replace his 1010s for
> 5350s. That is against policy, but a lot of customer service reps say
> that just to get people off the phone, or they're unaware of the store's
> policy (either still isn't an excuse for saying that)
>
> 2) Where they said a dual band phone and/or a software/PRL update would
> help, but there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding these two
> issues. I've even techs in the store say that, and unfortunately both
> cases are not true (only exception is the 7058 update for the Motorola
> startac style phones and that update was over 2 years ago).
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]


Well, I got Verizon today, and I have a signal inside my house. It's
like Christmas morning all over again. The phones were a bit pricy,
but I suppose they don't subsidize the phones as much and I have 400
more minutes a month for what will probably be the same price (base
price was the same, I'll have to see what the taxes, fees, etc., will
be).

*sob* *sob* - I'll probably be moving over to the Verizon board...
Thanks for your comments and help. It's great to meet people online
who actually know what they are talking about!