Sprint, Cingular, Verizon admit to worthless coverage maps.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Røbert M. wrote:

> If the Carriers are so innocent why did they agree to oversight by the
> State Attorney Generals????

Texas AG's office just implied a $1.67M tax to vzw... big deal..

JS
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <rmarkoff-B3F01A.18091622072004@news3.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 22 Jul
2004 23:09:16 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <FuXLc.3732$54.52258@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <rmarkoff-3514F7.17224222072004@news3.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 22 Jul
>> 2004 22:22:43 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <7SVLc.3709$54.52173@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Good cause everyone but you and a couple of other apologists realize how
>> >> >worthless Coverage maps are. Certainly 31 State's Attorney Generals do.
>> >>
>> >> Then why did they roll over for a measly $5 million and no restitution?
>> >
>> >Cause it's election year and they want a settlement quick.
>>
>> How silly.
>>
>> You are obviously clueless about this as well.
>
>If the Carriers are so innocent why did they agree to oversight by the
>State Attorney Generals????

Because it doesn't matter.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <6bYLc.123154$sP5.31704@fe44.usenetserver.com>,
Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:

> Røbert M. wrote:
>
> > If the Carriers are so innocent why did they agree to oversight by the
> > State Attorney Generals????
>
> Texas AG's office just implied a $1.67M tax to vzw... big deal..

Just wait.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <rmarkoff-502945.20302122072004@news3.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 23 Jul
2004 01:30:22 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <6bYLc.123154$sP5.31704@fe44.usenetserver.com>,
> Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
>
>> Røbert M. wrote:
>>
>> > If the Carriers are so innocent why did they agree to oversight by the
>> > State Attorney Generals????
>>
>> Texas AG's office just implied a $1.67M tax to vzw... big deal..
>
>Just wait.

For what? The End Of Cellular As We Know It? What a joke!

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:itQLc.3628$54.51565@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <rmarkoff-696C10.03553122072004@news3.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 22
Jul
> 2004 08:55:31 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
>
> >In article <y1GLc.13903$qa2.74@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
> > "Carl." <usenetcarlTHISPROBABLYWONTWORK@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How odd for one to read between the lines, but not the lines
themselves.
> >
> >I suppose you aren't old enough to remember the U.S. apology in 1969 for
> >the Pueblo intruding on North Korean waters in 1968.
>
> Now there's a bad and meaningless analogy.

It's my own fault for not adding him to the killfile after his first post.
But it's never too late to learn.


---
Update your PC at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 7/19/2004
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The real jest: The maps are a disappointment, but not worthless. And
Verizon already complies! The dr.

a) Verizon already gives consumers at least two weeks to terminate (15 days,
call it worry free)
b) And the maps are a disappointment, and real coverage maps will be
welcomed by all

And concerning the fine print.... the settlement has fine print, the maps
have fine print, the contracts have fine print and this is big businesses
and do you think for a minute that they agreed to providing new maps because
of the customers? No, they agreed to the map to put the settlement behind
them.

Business: is in the business of making money. Keep the customers "content"
and continue to make money. They will not (no one in fact) will give the
customers MORE, if it means less money. Remember how Verizon added the $15
activation fee: they did that for the customers? I was told they did it
"because they could, why not, others have one". And the .45 a month they
charge customers for a "verizon fee for porting investment/expenses"
Verizon states that for every line they loose, they gain 10. So where is
the cost of porting? 40 million customers x-times-x .45 cents per month is
$18 Million dollars incremental income per month. The service is good,
coverage is good, but all are interested in being profitable first, and
customer service is high on the list, but not at the expense of #1. (in my
opinion) the dr.

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-4ADED7.12163321072004@news3.west.earthlink.net...
> http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=2069335
>
>
> AUSTIN, Texas
>
>
> Under the terms of the agreement, Cingular Wireless, Sprint PCS and
> Verizon Wireless must provide customers with coverage-area maps that are
> as accurate as current technology allows; give consumers at least two
> weeks to terminate service contracts without incurring penalties; and
> change the way they advertise and sell services and coverage.
>
>
> http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=533
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <6a9Mc.1719$dM2.1247@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
dr.wireMORE <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote:
> The service is good,
>coverage is good, but all are interested in being profitable first, and
>customer service is high on the list, but not at the expense of #1.

The problem with that is ...??

I was with Hewlett-Packard Company back in the days when it was run by
Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, a company known for its high sense of
ethics, fair play, concern for employees, and social responsibility. Of
the top-ten objectives of the company, #1 was "be profitable". Without
the profits, the company wouldn't exist, and the other objectives would
be moot.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

You're picking at nits.

As a disinterested reader, I'd say the important point is that Sprint, et
al, agreed to change their behavior. If it really wasn't egregious, they
probably would have chosen to defend it.


"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:kODLc.3534$54.48818@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> Of course, but the issue here is the false allegation in the Subject.
>
> In <jkDLc.4794$QO.2177@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 21 Jul 2004
19:51:51
> -0400, "Chris Cowles" <NoSpam@For.me> wrote:
>
> >Not in support of anyone's opinion here, but most out-of-court
settlements
> >include a denial of liability. The fact one exists has little bearing on
> >whether or not they do, in fact, use deceptive trade practices.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

If you haven't seen them, Verizon has better-than-average maps at
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST
or from the home page | Support | Coverage Locator.

dr.wireMORE wrote:

> The real jest: The maps are a disappointment, but not worthless. And
> Verizon already complies! The dr.
>
> b) And the maps are a disappointment, and real coverage maps will be
> welcomed by all

--
Frank Harris in San Francisco
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Could have used better colors.

"Frank Harris" <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote in message
news:cdu93f$khf$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> If you haven't seen them, Verizon has better-than-average maps at
>
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST
> or from the home page | Support | Coverage Locator.
>
> dr.wireMORE wrote:
>
> > The real jest: The maps are a disappointment, but not worthless. And
> > Verizon already complies! The dr.
> >
> > b) And the maps are a disappointment, and real coverage maps will be
> > welcomed by all
>
> --
> Frank Harris in San Francisco
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

I disagree, on all counts.

In <ZmhMc.11552$%S4.10213@bignews1.bellsouth.net> on Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:41:52
-0400, "Chris Cowles" <NoSpam@For.me> wrote:

>You're picking at nits.
>
>As a disinterested reader, I'd say the important point is that Sprint, et
>al, agreed to change their behavior. If it really wasn't egregious, they
>probably would have chosen to defend it.
>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:kODLc.3534$54.48818@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> Of course, but the issue here is the false allegation in the Subject.
>>
>> In <jkDLc.4794$QO.2177@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 21 Jul 2004
>19:51:51
>> -0400, "Chris Cowles" <NoSpam@For.me> wrote:
>>
>> >Not in support of anyone's opinion here, but most out-of-court
>settlements
>> >include a denial of liability. The fact one exists has little bearing on
>> >whether or not they do, in fact, use deceptive trade practices.
>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom