Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Phillipe
    Guest
    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

    >
    >
    > [email protected] (justin) wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > >> I am 27. My mother works in a state senator's office. I gave her a

    > > copy of the letter. Apparently, the senator knows the
    > > government/Sprint rep. Although the Executive Service Rep mentioned
    > > the letters to the Attorney Generals and the BBBs, I'm getting a
    > > feeling that this connection had something to do with the call I
    > > received today.
    > >
    > > That's rather discouraging. Because it means that people like me who
    > > don't know someone and do all the things I did, may not get their
    > > remedy.

    >
    > Or it may have been both. I am glad to see it got resolved, even though
    > I hate to see people leave because of this.
    >
    > I did check coverage, and you should be in a good coverage, but even my
    > detailed map I have access to, doesn't take in account all the
    > obstructions in the area, buildings, hills, mountains, over-usage etc..




    TWO MAJOR ISSUEs HERE THAT A SPRINTPCS TECH SHOULD ANSWER:


    1. Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to escalate within SPRINT to solve
    problems of billing and handset functionality?? There needs to be
    something between the bottom rung of the 800 #'s (*2) and a
    STATE Attorney General.

    2. Some of us carefully read Justins problems, and it demonstrates that
    you are fooling yourself and us by claiming he has coverage.
    Sprint needs more honest coverage maps, not disingenuous claims
    of "you should be in good coverage".



    See More: Needs an answer from SPRINT




  2. #2
    SprintPCS Tech
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT



    Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:
    > > I did check coverage, and you should be in a good coverage, but even my
    > > detailed map I have access to, doesn't take in account all the
    > > obstructions in the area, buildings, hills, mountains, over-usage etc..

    >
    >
    >
    > TWO MAJOR ISSUEs HERE THAT A SPRINTPCS TECH SHOULD ANSWER:
    >
    > 2. Some of us carefully read Justins problems, and it demonstrates that
    > you are fooling yourself and us by claiming he has coverage.
    > Sprint needs more honest coverage maps, not disingenuous claims
    > of "you should be in good coverage".


    According to my system, he should be in good coverage, but with the
    possibilities of obstructions and limitations, like those I mentioned,
    it is impossible for the compant to put out coverage maps that are 100%
    accurate, and since I've neve rbeen in that area, I wouldn't have any
    idea what the geography of that area is. In places I've been in, I can
    tell where the map is inaccurate, and I try to notify the network
    operations teams of this.
    I'm not trying to "fool" anyone - by my own words, and your
    summarization, I said *should* - not definitely.

    (I answered this question first because my quote was easily availbable)
    >
    > 1. Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to escalate within SPRINT to solve
    > problems of billing and handset functionality?? There needs to be
    > something between the bottom rung of the 800 #'s (*2) and a
    > STATE Attorney General.


    I agree, but I'm in a position where I can't do anything, and a lot of
    customer service reps in the call center just don't care, so they are
    the main reason why a lot of issues aren't being escalated. The Sprint
    store did what they were supposed to do, and if I was in their shoes,
    someone had the same issue with at least 2 different model phones (he
    still didn't get into the third, the 8100), I would have said that most
    likely where he lives is a dead spot or weak coverage, it is very
    possible.

    And before the naysayers jump in saying its bull that one house can't
    have coverage, I've seen it. Where I lived before, I was in a condo,
    the building was 3 storeis high, each story had a unit. Why is it I was
    on the first floor (BTW - west wass was 75% underground) I could get a
    signal, my neighbors on the 3rd floor could get a good signal, yet the
    people on the 2nd couldn't?

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



  3. #3
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT

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

    > I'm not trying to "fool" anyone - by my own words, and your
    > summarization, I said *should* - not definitely.


    I guess you didnt read his complaints fully. His whole town, many square
    miles no longer has coverage. Its a major hole in the Sprint mapped
    coverage, apparently caused by overload on neighboring cell towers
    giving those geographic areas preference.


    I do notice you liberally use the word "should". That might be the one
    biggest knock on Sprint. Things don't work like they "should", at any
    level, or dealing with almost any issue.



  4. #4
    SprintPCS Tech
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT



    Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > I do notice you liberally use the word "should". That might be the one
    > biggest knock on Sprint. Things don't work like they "should", at any
    > level, or dealing with almost any issue.


    I notice a lot of things work like they "should", just in the huge
    scheme of things, things when things don't work like they "should" is
    when people start yelling and screaming.

    He did mention that it could be a capacity issue, since the towns next
    to him have grown conciderably recently. That could be one of the
    factors. His area, even though it may be covered by a few towers, could
    all be in the weakest aprt of those tower's ranges, so there would be
    poor coverage where he is, but the maps might not show that.

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



  5. #5
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT

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

    >
    >
    > Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > I do notice you liberally use the word "should". That might be the one
    > > biggest knock on Sprint. Things don't work like they "should", at any
    > > level, or dealing with almost any issue.

    >
    > I notice a lot of things work like they "should", just in the huge
    > scheme of things, things when things don't work like they "should" is
    > when people start yelling and screaming.
    >
    > He did mention that it could be a capacity issue, since the towns next
    > to him have grown conciderably recently. That could be one of the
    > factors. His area, even though it may be covered by a few towers, could
    > all be in the weakest aprt of those tower's ranges, so there would be
    > poor coverage where he is, but the maps might not show that.


    Obfuscation. Its his whole town thats not covered anymore. A big enough
    area that it Sprint needs to modify its maps to reflect it.



  6. #6
    justin
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT

    [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 did check coverage, and you should be in a good coverage, but even my
    > > > detailed map I have access to, doesn't take in account all the
    > > > obstructions in the area, buildings, hills, mountains, over-usage etc..

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > TWO MAJOR ISSUEs HERE THAT A SPRINTPCS TECH SHOULD ANSWER:
    > >
    > > 2. Some of us carefully read Justins problems, and it demonstrates that
    > > you are fooling yourself and us by claiming he has coverage.
    > > Sprint needs more honest coverage maps, not disingenuous claims
    > > of "you should be in good coverage".

    >
    > According to my system, he should be in good coverage, but with the
    > possibilities of obstructions and limitations, like those I mentioned,
    > it is impossible for the compant to put out coverage maps that are 100%
    > accurate, and since I've neve rbeen in that area, I wouldn't have any
    > idea what the geography of that area is. In places I've been in, I can
    > tell where the map is inaccurate, and I try to notify the network
    > operations teams of this.
    > I'm not trying to "fool" anyone - by my own words, and your
    > summarization, I said *should* - not definitely.
    >
    > (I answered this question first because my quote was easily availbable)
    > >
    > > 1. Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to escalate within SPRINT to solve
    > > problems of billing and handset functionality?? There needs to be
    > > something between the bottom rung of the 800 #'s (*2) and a
    > > STATE Attorney General.

    >
    > I agree, but I'm in a position where I can't do anything, and a lot of
    > customer service reps in the call center just don't care, so they are
    > the main reason why a lot of issues aren't being escalated. The Sprint
    > store did what they were supposed to do, and if I was in their shoes,
    > someone had the same issue with at least 2 different model phones (he
    > still didn't get into the third, the 8100), I would have said that most
    > likely where he lives is a dead spot or weak coverage, it is very
    > possible.
    >
    > And before the naysayers jump in saying its bull that one house can't
    > have coverage, I've seen it. Where I lived before, I was in a condo,
    > the building was 3 storeis high, each story had a unit. Why is it I was
    > on the first floor (BTW - west wass was 75% underground) I could get a
    > signal, my neighbors on the 3rd floor could get a good signal, yet the
    > people on the 2nd couldn't?
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



    I have a good friend that is sort of a techie and he tried to explain
    CDMA and TDMA (sp?) to me last night. He said it was likely not the
    obstructions, but the number of people on the towers. Frisco is
    growing much faster than Little Elm, so there are a good number of
    Sprint Customers in Frisco.

    Since that is the case, we're all competing for the tower in Frisco,
    and since I'm farther away than most of the people in Frisco, my calls
    "lose out" to people who are closer, thus dropping my calls when
    someone else's call bullies mine because their signal is just better.

    That was what he explained to me. Could be true. Sounds reasonable.
    But I wouldn't know.



  7. #7
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT

    "SprintPCS Tech" <[email protected]net> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > He did mention that it could be a capacity issue, since the towns next
    > to him have grown conciderably recently. That could be one of the
    > factors. His area, even though it may be covered by a few towers, could
    > all be in the weakest aprt of those tower's ranges, so there would be
    > poor coverage where he is, but the maps might not show that.


    I think the point here is that for CDMA:

    A Capacity Issue *Becomes* a Coverage Issue.

    As you may know, the coverage of a CDMA tower "breathes" according to the call
    load on the tower. If the towers in a given region are overloaded, their
    coverage cells shrink, thereby opening up holes in coverage. The original
    poster is claiming that his entire neighborhood is no longer covered by Sprint
    service because towers in adjacent neighborhoods are overloaded and have hence
    shrunk their coverage cells.

    The bottom line here is that CDMA carriers must be more vigilant in their
    coverage maps. Ideally, the coverage maps would be updated daily or weekly
    according to observed call load (which partly determines coverage cell size).
    At the very least, Sprint could run a batch job once a month to look for any
    gaping coverage holes which have opened up due to heavy call loads, and update
    the national coverage map accordingly. Perhaps the primary purpose of this
    would be to accommodate subscribers who rightly need to cancel due to an
    (effective) service cutoff caused by cell shrinkage.





  8. #8
    Steven J Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT

    Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> I did check coverage, and you should be in a good coverage, but even my
    >> detailed map I have access to, doesn't take in account all the
    >> obstructions in the area, buildings, hills, mountains, over-usage etc..

    >
    > 2. Some of us carefully read Justins problems, and it demonstrates that
    > you are fooling yourself and us by claiming he has coverage.
    > Sprint needs more honest coverage maps, not disingenuous claims
    > of "you should be in good coverage".


    Kindly read the posts to which you are responding, or shut the hell up.

    He said "SHOULD BE." He did not say "IS".

    If you have a problem figuring out what the difference is, I suggest you take
    some remedial reading comprehension classes.

    And I don't believe Justin lives in an area covered by SPCS Tech - SPCS Tech's
    e-mail address is at BellSouth.net, and BellSouth is a regional phone company
    that does not do business in Texas. It is possible that the call center
    where SPCS Tech works is the one that services the market area that includes
    Justin's home, but I'm betting that it isn't. Even if it is, unless SPCS
    Tech lives in Dallas, he may not necessarily know about each and every problem
    spot that exists in that area.

    --
    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]



  9. #9
    SprintPCS Tech
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT



    [email protected] (justin) wrote in article > I have a good friend that
    is sort of a techie and he tried to explain
    > CDMA and TDMA (sp?) to me last night. He said it was likely not the
    > obstructions, but the number of people on the towers. Frisco is
    > growing much faster than Little Elm, so there are a good number of
    > Sprint Customers in Frisco.
    >
    > Since that is the case, we're all competing for the tower in Frisco,
    > and since I'm farther away than most of the people in Frisco, my calls
    > "lose out" to people who are closer, thus dropping my calls when
    > someone else's call bullies mine because their signal is just better.
    >
    > That was what he explained to me. Could be true. Sounds reasonable.
    > But I wouldn't know.


    Sounds very reasonable.

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



  10. #10
    SprintPCS Tech
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT



    "Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > The bottom line here is that CDMA carriers must be more vigilant in their
    > coverage maps. Ideally, the coverage maps would be updated daily or weekly
    > according to observed call load (which partly determines coverage cell size).
    > At the very least, Sprint could run a batch job once a month to look for any
    > gaping coverage holes which have opened up due to heavy call loads, and update
    > the national coverage map accordingly. Perhaps the primary purpose of this
    > would be to accommodate subscribers who rightly need to cancel due to an
    > (effective) service cutoff caused by cell shrinkage.
    >
    >


    The only way to check the coverage 100% is to send people out into the
    field and make test calls (yes, we all laugh at the 'can you hear me
    now", but that is true, to an extent (no talking, they hook the phone up
    to a device that tests it).

    They don't have the resources (mainly money) to go send people out and
    test everywhere, even on a semi-annual basis, the costs would be too
    great, so they try to compensate.

    Network ops looks at reports of outages, wether its short term or long
    term. Then, they look at their options to resolve the issue, wether its
    tweaking a tower thats already up (and then tweaking every tower near
    it, and fanning out etc..), ot putting up new towers (then tweaking the
    surrounding towers etc..).

    So, that will bring up the next question some people may want to ask,
    why doesn't Sprint PCS (or any carrier for that matter) just boost all
    their towers up to their maximum? Several reasons

    -The carrier's monthly electric bill would skyrocket, and so would
    maintenance fees due since the towers are working a lot harder and also
    having a higher risk of a tower going down, passing the savings (or lack
    there of) down to the consumer in the form of higher rates.

    -The towers would interfere with each other and other carriers. Yes, it
    doesn't make sence, but network ops spends over a month after a new site
    is on-line tweaking that tower, all the towers it 'touches' and so on.
    The slightest change can knock out coverage in areas.

    -Then there would also be a signal in areas that the FCC and/or
    government doesn't want or allow, such as some military installations,
    hospitals, etc..

    -The protests (We don't want a tower, but demand coverages) would get
    crazy from people who claim they got brain cancer from the cel site.

    I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons, too.

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



  11. #11
    justin
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT

    Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> I did check coverage, and you should be in a good coverage, but even my
    > >> detailed map I have access to, doesn't take in account all the
    > >> obstructions in the area, buildings, hills, mountains, over-usage etc..

    > >
    > > 2. Some of us carefully read Justins problems, and it demonstrates that
    > > you are fooling yourself and us by claiming he has coverage.
    > > Sprint needs more honest coverage maps, not disingenuous claims
    > > of "you should be in good coverage".

    >
    > Kindly read the posts to which you are responding, or shut the hell up.
    >
    > He said "SHOULD BE." He did not say "IS".
    >
    > If you have a problem figuring out what the difference is, I suggest you take
    > some remedial reading comprehension classes.
    >
    > And I don't believe Justin lives in an area covered by SPCS Tech - SPCS Tech's
    > e-mail address is at BellSouth.net, and BellSouth is a regional phone company
    > that does not do business in Texas. It is possible that the call center
    > where SPCS Tech works is the one that services the market area that includes
    > Justin's home, but I'm betting that it isn't. Even if it is, unless SPCS
    > Tech lives in Dallas, he may not necessarily know about each and every problem
    > spot that exists in that area.



    True, and I think I've figured out why. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
    Sprint uses the CDMA, the coverage area of which grows smaller as more
    users use a given tower. Well, the closest tower is in Frisco, which
    is growing really, really fast. The number of Sprint users in Frisco
    could have easily doubled in the 5 months since I purchased the phone.
    That puts me, probably 4-6 miles west of the tower, at the bottom of
    the pecking order or outside the coverage area altogether, depending
    on how many people are making calls when I do.

    That is my theory based on my limited readings from these boards.
    Alot of you guys know WAY too much about cell phones. Keep up the
    good work!

    Justin



  12. #12
    SprintPCS Tech
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT



    [email protected] (justin) wrote in article > True, and I think I've
    figured out why. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
    > Sprint uses the CDMA, the coverage area of which grows smaller as more
    > users use a given tower. Well, the closest tower is in Frisco, which
    > is growing really, really fast. The number of Sprint users in Frisco
    > could have easily doubled in the 5 months since I purchased the phone.
    > That puts me, probably 4-6 miles west of the tower, at the bottom of
    > the pecking order or outside the coverage area altogether, depending
    > on how many people are making calls when I do.
    >
    > That is my theory based on my limited readings from these boards.
    > Alot of you guys know WAY too much about cell phones. Keep up the
    > good work!
    >
    > Justin


    4-6 miles is stretching it with a tower, so your theory does sound
    right.

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



  13. #13
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Needs an answer from SPRINT


    "SprintPCS Tech" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    > [email protected] (justin) wrote in article > True, and I think I've
    > figured out why. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
    > > Sprint uses the CDMA, the coverage area of which grows smaller as more
    > > users use a given tower. Well, the closest tower is in Frisco, which
    > > is growing really, really fast. The number of Sprint users in Frisco
    > > could have easily doubled in the 5 months since I purchased the phone.
    > > That puts me, probably 4-6 miles west of the tower, at the bottom of
    > > the pecking order or outside the coverage area altogether, depending
    > > on how many people are making calls when I do.
    > >
    > > That is my theory based on my limited readings from these boards.
    > > Alot of you guys know WAY too much about cell phones. Keep up the
    > > good work!
    > >
    > > Justin

    >
    > 4-6 miles is stretching it with a tower, so your theory does sound
    > right.


    One problem that exists for SPCS and other wireless providers is growth,
    especially in the 'burbs. It's not all the easy to add additional towers on
    a timely basis when there is a high growth area, if at all. Once it's
    determined extra capacity / towers are needed, a lot of things have to take
    place before a new tower goes up.

    First the bean counters at what ever wireless provider it is, has to
    determine the need, and whether it's cost effective to put up a new tower
    with the amount of customers and traffic going through the area. They
    determine whether the cost for the lease of land, cost of the tower, and
    legal work is worth it for the amount of return they believe they will get.

    Next, they have to find a site that will work and try to negociate with the
    owner to lease some space ... Not very easy if it's in a NIMBY area.

    Then they have to file permits, and go through zoning committees.

    If they are successful, it can take up to 6 months or longer to get a new
    tower up and operating.

    In Justin's case, it just may be that there aren't that many customers in
    his *specific* area, and away from any of the main highways in the area,
    which would justify the expense of putting in a new tower.

    Bob





  • Similar Threads