Top message: low rf area by sammy2
Replying to: Re: low rf area by theDMan
Re: low rf area
I did not expect the CSR reps to figure it out on their own but rather since the area was identified by Verizon testing long ago as a low RF area the local reps should be made specifically aware of the problem.
The marketing competition is certainly a problem. Most cell phone users understand that coverage is not perfect and it is an ever changing field of play. Cell phone tower locations are public information although locations under consideration are not. The tower that was later to service my area had already been proposed to the municipality and it takes a long lead time to get it approved and installed. Since it was public information it made sense for Verizon not to make me as their good customer do all the hard work of identifying it. I experienced the strategy as disrespectful.
The area in question was not a large area but rather a pocket in the heart of residential Denver.
I even asked for technical information so I could at my own expense and effort install an antenna on my home so the signal could be boosted. Verizon would not assist in this matter.
When we purchase cars we expect them to minimally drive us to our destinations. Even though this expectation is reasonable, marketing cars focuses on lifestyle. In the world of cell phones we have yet to meet full coverage and reliability so it is imperative for the consumer to receive adequate technical advise to make their business decisions.
If a competitor moves to leverage a carriers weakness than the carrier has choices to make to build up their own network or give way to the competitor.
Since this issue has been resolved my focus here is to suggest improved communication between the carriers techical personnel and the CSRs so that the CSRs can better inform consumers.