Consumer Reports bashed the wireless industry again in its second annual survey of rating wireless providers. It’s safe to say carriers flunked in the magazine’s eyes. The editor of Consumer Reports complained cellular service hasn’t improved one iota since last year.
But while Consumer Reports was quick to complain about quality of service, it failed to write a balanced article about coverage problems. Network coverage is directly related to equipment deployments. Billing issues and pro-rating termination fees are separate issues that carriers should address. But if the complaints are dropped calls and quality of service, the easiest solution is to build a tower or otherwise enhance the network. And that takes cooperation from state, federal and local governments, and the very people Consumer Reports surveyed who complained about how much their service sucks. Nowhere in the magazine’s 14-page report is there one sentence, one sentence, about obstacles carriers face when siting towers. Does anyone in industry really believe that AT&T Wireless and Sprint PCS (which tied for last place in quality of service in New York) want to tick off lucrative customers working on Wall Street or Madison Avenue?
The reason Verizon Wireless and Nextel Communications Inc. generally fare the best in these types of surveys is because their networks have been operating a long time, and they’ve had time to fill in coverage gaps. AT&T Wireless and Cingular also have been around a long time, and their TDMA coverage is fine. But both carriers are switching to GSM technology, and it takes time-and money, antennas, repeaters and the like-for a new network to work robustly. Sprint PCS and T-Mobile USA are relative newcomers to the industry.
Consumer Reports updated its Web site to encourage people to e-mail the Federal Communications Commission and carriers to change how carriers do business. What are these changes? Do they include suggestions to make it easier to get towers sited? Do they include letter-writing campaigns to local planning commissions complaining about adequate coverage in their towns and the need for the commissions not to stall tower siting?
Nope. The magazine wants better coverage maps. A coverage map may lead to a better-informed consumer, but it does not mean better coverage.
Frankly, the whole idea of coverage maps seems like a waste of energy to me. If my call gets dropped, I’m not going to say, “Well, the map probably said there was no coverage in this sector so I guess I can’t blame the carrier.” In fact, the last time I experienced dropped calls was at the PCIA tower show in Florida (kind of ironic). You know why those calls were dropped? Because the Atlantic Ocean was outside my hotel room. I’ll take that tradeoff!
Carriers know they have to compete in several areas, including coverage. Consumer Reports should let its readers know that at least part of the reason coverage is a problem is because some communities are fighting tower siting. It was worth at least a sentence.
