Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Zoning, Fines, and Coverage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 22:15:17 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: Robert Schwaninger <[email-masked]>
Subject: Zoning, Fines, and Coverage

Andy's recognition of the contradictory directions of government, "provide
service but don't employ towers, antennas, coax, strobes, or anything else
that disturbs our vista" is well noted.  For years, carriers have dealt with
the need to placate the NIMBYs while still providing quality service.
Meanwhile, solutions to the opposite directions of government also cause
other problems, as rf engineers try to squeeze capacity out of system
designs that are not good spectrum neighbors.  There isn't anyone with
knowledge regarding the industry who would argue that trying to solve the
problems of local government relations is an easy one.
 
On the other hand, I submit that carriers often do themselves harm by
marketing ubiquitous service claims.  The "Do you hear me now?" campaign,
and the Sprint commercials that suggested that digital PCS was available and
reliable at levels greater than analog cellular service, etc.  I believe
that it is these claims that the California PUC was finding to be inherently
deceptive.  If I sold my legal services in a manner which suggested that I
could perform all kinds of law in all jurisdictions for all kinds of people,
I would be lying.  One size does not fit all.  And one carrier cannot serve
all.  So why claim service that you cannot deliver?
 
There isn't a major carrier in America who cannot, with some degree of
precision and based on testing, tell you where their signals are weak,
unreliable, or simply not present.  These holes or blockage areas are known.
Why not tell people?  Picture Mr. Kringle saying to the little girl on his
lap, "we have roller skates here at Macy's, but what you need for your size
feet is at Gimbles."  Yeah, I know.  That isn't the way that the carriers
market their services.  That isn't the way "Business Gets Done."  They
prefer to say "nationwide coverage" and "all the time, everywhere", but we
all know that these claims are full blown hype.  The problem is that many
consumers don't know just how much hot air is out there.
 
Added to that are the terms in the carrier contract that says, in essence,
"once you put your signature on this page, you're stuck."  So you sign up
based on colorful coverage maps hanging above the counter where the designer
phones are displayed, which map shows areas of coverage that make it look
like you can get a signal, clear as a bell, anywhere within a hundred-mile
radius of the store.  What you don't know is that the carrier has a hole in
coverage where your house is, or where your business is, or where your wife
works, or along the highway that you use every day to commute....etc.  In
other words, you didn't get the service you were promised by ads, maps,
brochures, and hype.  And, according to the carrier's contract, you are
stuck with that service unless you want to pay a hefty cancellation fee.
 
Is this bait and switch, false advertising, unconscionable contract
language, or other forms of improper business practices?  Probably one or
more of those.  Can the carriers say, "well, gee whiz, guys, if you'd let us
build towers wherever and however we want to, we wouldn't have those holes."
Yeah, but do we really believe that the carriers would put out the money to
gold-plate their signal coverage?  I don't.  Besides, that response does not
answer the consumer's issue, i.e. "why didn't you tell me that I wouldn't
get coverage in my neighborhood before I bought the service?"  and "why
can't I return the phone for a full refund if I discover what you already
knew, that your service just doesn't work for me?"  
 
Yeah, I know that full refund policies could be abused and create a
nightmare.  But some accommodation for hyperbolic advertising practices is
required to protect consumers from getting the shaft.  And blaming zoning
boards ain't it.  That's a problem, but it's one that carriers should deal
with through consumer education, not leveraging the ignorance of the public
by rosy advertising practices.  Maybe if more people knew why coverage isn't
perfect, they would assist in adopting more accessible zoning regulations.
They would understand that additional sites are required to provide reliable
service, but that those sites require zoning cooperation.  Then the choice
becomes a referendum on lifestyle, vista versus telephony.  
 
No, I don't have a perfect solution.  But all solutions, whatever they might
be, must be based on honest discourse, even when a carrier is selling the
leopard print, designer, view phone to the head cheerleader of the local
high school.  And local governments should also be honest, especially when
they want BOTH a pristine vista and E911.
 
Robert Schwaninger

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
ReplayTV: Control live television
Special Sale: 50% off ReplayTV
CNet Ranked #1 over Tivo!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aUMW7B/A6qGAA/ySSFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/