Dead Zone Database

Yes but you have to wonder about the accuracy of that site. They rely on anyone out there to submit dead zones with no real way to verify it. Example: Someone submitted a dead zone for SPCS at Sunset and the 405 here in LA. I was curious so I went over to test for myself and found that I had a full signal (4 bars) right there! So you can't really go by what is listed on there. Carriers are always adding improvements to their network so a dead zone just a couple of months ago may no longer be a dead zone.

 

I have submitted several to that site Larry under SF Bay Area for Verizon dead spots up here in Lake and Mendocino Counties, and I can verify each one as being genuine

 

I'm sure a lot of it is accurate but I have found errors. Mike, what would you do if Verizon installed some new towers next week and fixed those areas you submitted? Can you go back and edit it? I don't think so.

 

There is a option on there site to subit a dead zone to be deleted.

 

Well, I did say in the post that it's not verified.

I think you can remove a dead area... there's a link on the page. Didn't try it, though.

 

At the rate Verizon installs towers here, I doubt they'd pop up in a week You can delete dead spots you submitted from the database. I will be travelling all those spots tommorrow on my way to Redding and back, so I'll let you know if they are still dead, and I would bet my life they still are.

 

Mike,
I know you will check up on it but I bet over 90% of the people who reported dead zones won't. And that site's been around for over a year now. I think the concept of that site was a good idea but there's just too much room for error to be taken seriously.

 

Well Larry, I browsed the site for all the major markets and when you analyze the database as a whole, the number of complaints for a particular carrier in a particular market seems very consistent with the complaints and discussions here in WA. If I wanted to know how good or bad a carrier is in a particular market I can always see if the number of complaints is high or low although I understand I cannot rely completely on this information to judge whether or not a phone will work in a particular area with a carrier but at least I get a very good idea of how well a carrier performs in a market. So, good job to whoever came up with this idea.

 

If that's the case then why does AT&T have 3 times as many dead zones entered as Sprint PCS for the Los Angeles market? Since AT&T won the JD Powers award for LA then they should have the least amount of complaints right? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Well, today I drove through all the dead spots I've listed on the site, they're still dead.

 

Great site! I think it is a great concept, but will only truly be effective if carriers RESPOND to the complaints. But I beg to differ with you Larry, I would believe the word of many users versus JD Power. If you know how JD Power arrives at their ratings, they select a small sample of users in a given market and survey them- accuracy is suspect there, and since JD Power recieve compensation from the very carrier's they rate, one truly cannot consider them as neutral a reference as say, Consumer Reports, who do NOT accept outside advertising or compensation. I do agree that if Dead Cell Zones does not check the accuracy of it's data over time, it may not be reliable- but I can tell you the Sprint PCS info for Atlanta is dead accurate to within 24 hours of my writing this!

Don't get me wrong, JD Power is a good source of info, but they do their research much like Arbitron does ratings of radio stations- every one is number one! I would like to see a real non-biased review of carriers on hard technical evidence, raw RSSI throughout coverage area, numbers of actual dropped calls due to poor signal and network overload. Until carriers or a third party conduct such a study, ANY information must not be taken as a rule.

Try it BEFORE you buy it!

 

Well I've found several errors reported in Los Angeles so my results differ from yours. I don't feel the site is reliable. It's often outdated information. And I'm not saying this just to defend Sprint. AT&T, Verizon and Cingular all have more dead zones reported than Sprint does for Los Angeles. If you discredit JD Powers then you discredit all the awards that AT&T and Verizon won. Fine by me.

 

<< Well I've found several errors reported in Los Angeles so my results differ from yours. I don't feel the site is reliable. It's often outdated information. And I'm not saying this just to defend Sprint. AT&T, Verizon and Cingular all have more dead zones reported than Sprint does for Los Angeles. If you discredit JD Powers then you discredit all the awards that AT&T and Verizon won. Fine by me. >>



I am not discrediting JD Powers, just calling it like I see it. Their results are not absoulute; i.e. AT&T has notoriously poor service in atlanta, Verizon has outstanding service- there are some areas where Verizon has poor service (Macon, GA). We need an INDEPENDENT test based on technical facts, not hype- for any and all carriers. With the mounting complaints on all carriers, many state and the Federal government are considering legislation to deal with such issues as coverage holes versus advertising, billing errors and complaint/dispute resolution. The number one complaint from most consumers is poor service/dropped calls and most feel misled because of claims of coverage or network capacity made by the carriers themselves. Before it gets to the level of legislative review, the carriers should educate consumers on the limitations of radio and their own networks, be upfront about how they are being billed, and make it clear to the user about trial periods so they can decide if a service will work for them.

 

Since the deadcellzones.com website is not regulated by any one entity, I see it as a better guide than some "Austin Powers" award whose team may receive money to speak in favor of a particular company.