Crelin,
<< Original post and responses >>
Thank you for making my point…it didn’t take long for someone to bite.
Unobstructed was my use of term, which is contradictory to the Verizon customer service agreement-yes, but also it is indirectly proportional to the coverage map provided by same. In simpler terms, its illustrative baiting and is one of the most unethical business practices used! See, the customer agreement says one thing, while the coverage map suggests something opposite, they are in affect acting in paradox. Most people don’t read the agreement in totality, I didn’t, I went off of the map provided and the guidance provided by the rep, both of which suggested, barring some catastrophe, service in the area is excellent. I mean how could I refute the map in red that shows excellent coverage? Anyway, OF course a wireless device won’t receive a signal if it’s not in range of a tx-signal (RF-101), but again, according the Verizon, I’m well within that range.
Again, RF and the its theory, which includes the how and why propagation is effected by the many variables is well understood, however, what isn’t affected by those same variables is the approach or better yet the business acumen that Verizon ‘chooses’ to use with its customers, an approach that still in my opinion lacks in professionalism and knowledge of theory and their product.
But again, thanks for biting on my use of term ‘unobstructed’.
Regards,
Jason
Message was edited by: Verizon Moderator
So you expect verizon wireless to have a map showing every house, bush, and cement wall that could weaken the signal? They show where the signal is normally able to reach - showing every possible obstruction is an impossibility.
Again, thank you.
Regards
Jason
>>Personal information removed<<
Message was edited by: Verizon Moderator
No problem, glad you expect the impossible!
Start a new topic or ask questions in the open forum.
