Online coverage maps updated

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

After about a year with no updates the online maps have finally been
updated. For example they now show the new coverage in Kansas along
Hwy 54 West of Witchita. They also show the new coverage along I-5 in
San Diego in the Camp Pendelton area. There is also some new planned
future coverage that wasn't marked before. Examples: Arizona and New
Mexico along I-10 and I-40.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <9c02589b.0404121348.2ff14312@posting.google.com>,
larryt510@hotmail.com (Larry Thomas) wrote:

> After about a year with no updates the online maps have finally been
> updated. For example they now show the new coverage in Kansas along
> Hwy 54 West of Witchita. They also show the new coverage along I-5 in
> San Diego in the Camp Pendelton area. There is also some new planned
> future coverage that wasn't marked before. Examples: Arizona and New
> Mexico along I-10 and I-40.

The maps are still totally unacceptable, ignoring "smaller" deadzones of
two or three miles in size.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-6D45AE.17131812042004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <9c02589b.0404121348.2ff14312@posting.google.com>,
> larryt510@hotmail.com (Larry Thomas) wrote:
>
> > After about a year with no updates the online maps have finally been
> > updated. For example they now show the new coverage in Kansas along
> > Hwy 54 West of Witchita. They also show the new coverage along I-5 in
> > San Diego in the Camp Pendelton area. There is also some new planned
> > future coverage that wasn't marked before. Examples: Arizona and New
> > Mexico along I-10 and I-40.
>
> The maps are still totally unacceptable, ignoring "smaller" deadzones of
> two or three miles in size.

And who made you Grand Poobah? Your twisted reading of the CTIA Consumer
Code is incorrect.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:
> The maps are still totally unacceptable, ignoring "smaller" deadzones of
> two or three miles in size.

Obviously you don't understand radio theory and how it relates
to quality of service. Radio systems are engineered to provide
at coverage in 90% of the area 90% of the time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

If it's unacceptable, don't look.

Scotty


"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-6D45AE.17131812042004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <9c02589b.0404121348.2ff14312@posting.google.com>,
> larryt510@hotmail.com (Larry Thomas) wrote:
>
> > After about a year with no updates the online maps have finally been
> > updated. For example they now show the new coverage in Kansas along
> > Hwy 54 West of Witchita. They also show the new coverage along I-5 in
> > San Diego in the Camp Pendelton area. There is also some new planned
> > future coverage that wasn't marked before. Examples: Arizona and New
> > Mexico along I-10 and I-40.
>
> The maps are still totally unacceptable, ignoring "smaller" deadzones of
> two or three miles in size.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Thanks.

I will be down that way ( San Diego ) this weekend so, I'll try it out.

Scotty


"Larry Thomas" <larryt510@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c02589b.0404121348.2ff14312@posting.google.com...
> After about a year with no updates the online maps have finally been
> updated. For example they now show the new coverage in Kansas along
> Hwy 54 West of Witchita. They also show the new coverage along I-5 in
> San Diego in the Camp Pendelton area. There is also some new planned
> future coverage that wasn't marked before. Examples: Arizona and New
> Mexico along I-10 and I-40.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kentucky map is still the old one. Sprint has added coverage along the I-75
corridor going into TN and some on I-64E towards Mt. Sterling which still
are not on the map.


"Larry Thomas" <larryt510@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c02589b.0404121348.2ff14312@posting.google.com...
> After about a year with no updates the online maps have finally been
> updated. For example they now show the new coverage in Kansas along
> Hwy 54 West of Witchita. They also show the new coverage along I-5 in
> San Diego in the Camp Pendelton area. There is also some new planned
> future coverage that wasn't marked before. Examples: Arizona and New
> Mexico along I-10 and I-40.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Alphad" <alphad77@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<z3Mec.125333$K91.340831@attbi_s02>...
> Kentucky map is still the old one. Sprint has added coverage along the I-75
> corridor going into TN and some on I-64E towards Mt. Sterling which still
> are not on the map.

Yeah it appears that some of the maps have been updated and some haven't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <BNKec.22295$F9.2247@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Scott Nelson - Wash DC" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:

> If it's unacceptable, don't look.
>
> Scotty

SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, and
violates one of its main points.

And then its apologists wonder why its always cominbg in worst in
studies of Customer Satisfaction?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Larry Thomas" <larryt510@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c02589b.0404131026.714b1edc@posting.google.com...
> "Alphad" <alphad77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<z3Mec.125333$K91.340831@attbi_s02>...
> > Kentucky map is still the old one. Sprint has added coverage along the
I-75
> > corridor going into TN and some on I-64E towards Mt. Sterling which
still
> > are not on the map.
>
> Yeah it appears that some of the maps have been updated and some haven't.

They might be updating the regions on a piecemeal basis. Didn't see anything
new on the Charlotte map.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<drWec.7867
> They might be updating the regions on a piecemeal basis. Didn't see anything
> new on the Charlotte map.
>
> Bob

I just noticed the Bakersfield, CA map (which oddly is the only map
that shows the CA Central Coast area) has also been updated. There's a
lot of new coverage along Hwy 101 between Santa Barbara and Monterey.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-D7B585.06353713042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>,
rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, and
> violates one of its main points.
>

Isn't that for the CTIA to decide, since it's the certifying
authority? Or are you now also more of an expert than the experts?

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <47c39aa7730005150b3151ce457dff0f@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-D7B585.06353713042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>,
> rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, and
> > violates one of its main points.
> >
>
> Isn't that for the CTIA to decide, since it's the certifying
> authority? Or are you now also more of an expert than the experts?

It would be nice if a map **EVER** actually showed all the known dead
spots, or you think it's OK to have dishonest maps?

 

[techgeek]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-074574.12251620042004@news02.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <47c39aa7730005150b3151ce457dff0f@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <rmarkoff-D7B585.06353713042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>,
> > rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > > SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, and
> > > violates one of its main points.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't that for the CTIA to decide, since it's the certifying
> > authority? Or are you now also more of an expert than the experts?
>
> It would be nice if a map **EVER** actually showed all the known dead
> spots, or you think it's OK to have dishonest maps?

With the number of variables there are when it comes to trying to
figure out cellular coverage, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get 100% accurate
maps.

The coverage area is constantly changing, as more people use the
tower, that tower's coverage area shrinks. When trees start to get
their springtime foliage, that interferes with the network. New
construction, other RF interference, weather, traffic, radio stations,
etc.. all that can affect the coverage.

It is difficult enough for ANY carrier to show a semi-accurate map
with all the known interferences, such as landscape (hills,
mountains), roads, waterways, buildings, airports etc..


If this is such a huge issue with you, how come I don't see you
complaining about this on the other newsgroups? Or is it just not OK
for Sprint and it's OK for everyone else?

 

[techgeek]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-074574.12251620042004@news02.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <47c39aa7730005150b3151ce457dff0f@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <rmarkoff-D7B585.06353713042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>,
> > rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > > SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, and
> > > violates one of its main points.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't that for the CTIA to decide, since it's the certifying
> > authority? Or are you now also more of an expert than the experts?
>
> It would be nice if a map **EVER** actually showed all the known dead
> spots, or you think it's OK to have dishonest maps?

And before you start to say you do, I did a search, you've only
complained about it in the SprintPCS, AT&T, and Cingular newsgroups.

What about Alltel, Nextel, Roger's ATT, Verizon? I don't see any
complaints in there, are you saying their coverage maps are 100%
accurate? If you say yes, you're lying.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-074574.12251620042004
@news02.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> In article <47c39aa7730005150b3151ce457dff0f@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <rmarkoff-D7B585.06353713042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>,
> > rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > > SprintPCS bragged that its a signatory to the Indutry Consumer Code, and
> > > violates one of its main points.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't that for the CTIA to decide, since it's the certifying
> > authority? Or are you now also more of an expert than the experts?
>
> It would be nice if a map **EVER** actually showed all the known dead
> spots, or you think it's OK to have dishonest maps?
>

You didn't answer the question, Phillie. You claim it's a violation
of the CTIA guidelines. Isn't that for the CTIA to decide?

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them