Cricket is at&t. And despite what you think carriers can't just throw up a tower wherever and whenever they want.
Cricket leases service from an actual carrier because they don't own anything to maintain. Cricket isn't outdoing anyone.
glitchedpixel wrote:Cricket leases service from an actual carrier because they don't own anything to maintain. Cricket isn't outdoing anyone.
glitchedpixel wrote:
As I said Cricket is owned by at&t..Like t-mobile owns Metro PCS
Cricket Wireless LLC is a prepaid wireless service provider in the United States, a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc. It offers mobile voice, text, and data using parent AT&T's nationwide network.
I'm well aware that Verizon can't just throw up a tower wherever they want, but if they're aware that their long time customer that pays the premium for Verizon service is unable to get service somewhere while customers of a competitor do have service then maybe they'll put this location on the list for future upgrades.
Cricket, AT&T - doesn't matter who it is, but they are outdoing Verizon in this area because they have service for their customers, but I do not.
I see that the location name was stripped out of my original post. Not trying to advocate for the camp - just trying to note the location in case Verizon would like to know where additional coverage is needed. Perhaps a more generic address would work? The area in question is Tanwax Lake, Benbow Dr E, Graham, WA
SUESTE99 wrote:I'm well aware that Verizon can't just throw up a tower wherever they want, but if they're aware that their long time customer that pays the premium for Verizon service is unable to get service somewhere while customers of a competitor do have service then maybe they'll put this location on the list for future upgrades.Cricket, AT&T - doesn't matter who it is, but they are outdoing Verizon in this area because they have service for their customers, but I do not.
SUESTE99 wrote:
It DOES matter because you didn't ay at&t was doing better than Verizon you were claiming a lowlily MVNO was. which is disingenuous. Crickets' reach only goes as far as at&t allows. If at&t/Cricket is better go with them. And no Verizon is not going to put up a tower for ONE customer.
Also mind you Verizon may have tried to get a new tower in your area but was shut down by your local politicians. This happens a lot. You have people that will complain about how a tower will ruin their view or property value or cause cancer or some other lame reason and since these NIMYBs( Not In My Back Yard ) are the most vocal the local zoning boards turn down carriers requests.
It can take 2-3 years or more from the time a carrier determines they need a new tower until one if up an operational. They have to find suitable land then negotiate a lease with the land owners then get permission from local zoning board. Who by the way can take months to approve or deny the thing. If approved then it can finally get built then it has to be tested.
Plus getting the FCC licenses. Plus verifying or building the fiber optic infrastructure to the tower location.
Having less than optimal signal, I agree is never ideal, SUESTE99. As a consumer, I too want to ensure I’m getting the best for myself and my family. Let’s give this the attention that’s needed. First I’m interested to know more about certain LG V20 settings inside your device. Is the “Advanced Calling switch" set as on or off?
https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/knowledge-base-208207/David_VZWFollow us on TWITTER @VZWSupportIf my response answered your question please click the _Correct Answer_ button under my response. This ensures others can benefit from our conversation. Thanks in advance for your help with this!!
