Tower Map is not a coverage map

> Now that SprintPCS has provided access to its
> tower maps

yes, much better, but still not a coverage map, as you have no way of knowing
the coverage area of any individual tower, and even SprintPCS is smart enough
not to refer to the Tower Maps as coverage maps.

If all Towers had identical circular coverage, then a Tower map could be made
into a coverage map. Nice try.

---

› See More: Tower Map is not a coverage map

"CAT0NHAT" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Now that SprintPCS has provided access to its
> > tower maps
>
> yes, much better, but still not a coverage map, as you have no way of
knowing
> the coverage area of any individual tower, and even SprintPCS is smart
enough
> not to refer to the Tower Maps as coverage maps.
>
> If all Towers had identical circular coverage, then a Tower map could be
made
> into a coverage map. Nice try.

I never said a tower map was a coverage map. But it gives you a good
approximation of coverage, and it certainly gives you more information than
any other carrier I've looked into. My point was that you had completely
ignored the fact (until I called you on it) that SprintPCS has given its
customers a bunch of information which they can use to decide whether or not
to expect decent coverage. Which brings me to another couple of questions
that I posed a little while back and that you completely ignored....name for
me one carrier that provides more information about tower location and
coverage than SprintPCS, and tell me exactly what you are demanding from
SprintPCS in this regard. And why don't you offer your considerable talents
and services to SprintPCS to get the coverage maps that you're demanding, as
I'm sure they would appreciate the help.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 23:39:56 GMT, "Jeff" <[email protected]> said:

> Which brings me to another couple of questions
>that I posed a little while back and that you completely ignored....name for
>me one carrier that provides more information about tower location and
>coverage than SprintPCS, and tell me exactly what you are demanding from
>SprintPCS in this regard.

Although he won't answer the question, I have documented the "Phill.
five step posting process" for responding to questions he his asked.

1) Should I reply?
If yes goto 2
If not goto 5

2) Search google for something to back up what I said.

a. If link found, does it agree with my point or even remotely
look like it could? If yes goto 4
b. If a link is found that may disprove my point, ignore the
information and go back to 2
c. A link was found, although it has nothing to do with the
original question, act like it does and goto 4.
d. last resort, find something to work with, like a one liner
that I can quote, completely ignore the context of the message and
add some spin if required and goto 4.
e. go back to 1

3) Reply back with one or more of the standard comments below, but
ignore all originally asked questions.

a. You are an apologist
b. You are a troll
c. You *****ed a word wrong
d. Call executive services
e. What about Justin
f. A reference to JD powers
g. You forger, patriot act, or something similar
h. No, you are
END

4) Reply back with "Read this link and weep, bow before me". Insert a
comment from step 3 above and send the message. END

5) Start a new thread with a new subject line, use a random name
@aol.com but post the same information as the original thread.
Include a comment from 3 above. END

norelpref wrote:


>
> Although he won't answer the question, I have documented the "Phill.
> five step posting process" for responding to questions he his asked.
>
> 1) Should I reply?
> If yes goto 2
> If not goto 5
>
> 2) Search google for something to back up what I said.
>
> a. If link found, does it agree with my point or even remotely
> look like it could? If yes goto 4
> b. If a link is found that may disprove my point, ignore the
> information and go back to 2
> c. A link was found, although it has nothing to do with the
> original question, act like it does and goto 4.
> d. last resort, find something to work with, like a one liner
> that I can quote, completely ignore the context of the message and
> add some spin if required and goto 4.
> e. go back to 1
>
> 3) Reply back with one or more of the standard comments below, but
> ignore all originally asked questions.
>
> a. You are an apologist
> b. You are a troll
> c. You *****ed a word wrong
> d. Call executive services
> e. What about Justin
> f. A reference to JD powers
> g. You forger, patriot act, or something similar
> h. No, you are
> END
>
> 4) Reply back with "Read this link and weep, bow before me". Insert a
> comment from step 3 above and send the message. END
>
> 5) Start a new thread with a new subject line, use a random name
> @aol.com but post the same information as the original thread.
> Include a comment from 3 above. END

I humbly bow to your greatness- the formula is amazingly accurate. You have
captured the true essence of being a Phil.