“Um, Hello? Hello? Can You Hear Me?” Trying to Get a Job Despite Your Cell Phone, 12 March 2014

Standard

Good Evening:

Five times in ten minutes. Five times in ten minutes.

I currently manage a San Francisco Public Utilities Commission recruitment for a rather specialized position, a 2481 Water Quality Technician (if curious, you can see it here). It’s an entry-level position, a steppingstone type of job that can launch a long and satisfying career, so we receive a very large number of applications. At about 3:15 this afternoon, I received the first of five calls in ten minutes from interested 2481 applicants.

DSCN1130

I like the phone calls. Unlike the private sector, The City & County of San Francisco structures hiring so that phone calls from applicants can neither help nor hurt their chances, but perhaps only 2% of all applicants do anything extra to get a job. Sooner or later, the extra effort should pay off.

The trouble is that all five phone calls began the same way.  Either the caller or I said the same thing:

“Um, hello? Hello? Can you hear me?”

DSCN1133_2

To be continued with any or all of the following:

“Hello?”

“You’re breaking up.”

“I moved to a new room; now can you hear me?”

Et cetera, et cetera. Lots of things you’ve heard or said before.

OK, this needs to stop.

America’s infrastructure is in sad shape in many ways; you can’t cross some bridges anymore without wondering if your hybrid will be the straw that breaks the span’s spine. But the infrastructure problem I encounter most often consists of poor cell phone reception.

Poor cell phone reception?! In San Francisco?? The home of Twitter among others??

That’s just nuts, but the truth is that cell phone falls short of adequate in this country.

DSCN1138

Embarrassingly, I know almost nothing about who’s responsible for cell phone towers and networks in the United States of America–providers? government? someone else?–but the current situation is untenable, and the problems become even greater if you are looking for a new job. Whether to save money, or because of disuse, millions of people have discarded their landlines and live solely off the cell. When they look for a new job, they need to know that they can reach prospective employers and communicate with them. No one knows this better than me, because I’m a guy whose job consists of hiring people. I can’t do my job if people can’t get through.

People shouldn’t have their cell phone calls disconnected simply because they drove into a tunnel or stepped into an elevator. Maybe the time has come for cell phone coverage to become a priority, responsibility and task for the feds. They’ve done a decent job in the past; the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (and yes, that is the formal name of America’s interstate highway system) has proven its worth. A change must come. The current “system” hurts job-hunters; therefore, it must also hurt our economy as a whole.

I apologize for the rant; I know my posts lean toward a lighter sort of tone, and this one is atypical. But I said “You’re breaking up” to five consecutive job seekers today and I reached my limit.

Vonn Scott Bair

Advertisements

5 responses »

  1. Every good rant deserves an attempt at a good reply rant comment; here’s mine.

    “Embarrassingly, I know almost nothing about who’s responsible for cell phone towers and networks in the United States of America–providers? government? someone else?”

    Providers buy tower space or lease tower space from dedicated private tower space companies, under FCC + FAA + some state and local rules for safety and so forth. Tower space is expensive and limited due to radiation and NIMBY concerns. As with other forms of real estate, someone already owns just about all of the prime tower locations in all our urban areas. Getting tower space i believe is only second to getting scarce spectrum space in terms of barriers-to-entry for potential mobile phone competitors. The costs of deploying nationally apparently (i’ve not seen the numbers) limit competitors to only the most well-funded big corporations (and that’s before regulatory capture and/or other forms of corruption kick in).

    “Whether to save money, or because of disuse, millions of people have discarded their landlines and live solely off the cell.”

    AT&T raised my basic measured analog home phone service 25% in January. They’d done the same thing two years prior. I currently pay more for this service (over $30/month) than the unlimited-otherwise-same service i used to have with them, before the price increases. Someone decided they needed to level the playing field by deregulating what traditional phone companies can charge for their traditional hardwired home service. Prices have shot up; maintenance has fallen by the wayside: the companies *want* people to abandon their hardwired copper pair lines to switch to the same company’s (in their dreams!) higher-profit mobile and/or bundled multi-platform home service (AT&T U-Verse, Verizon FiOS).

    The days of my houseful of actual telephone company phones with actual mechanical ringers + mid-1990s Macintosh-based answering system are numbered. Once a bedrock of communications reliability (relatively), analog residential phone lines are devolving to a poor quality level nearly commensurate with mobile phone technology. Based upon a (phone) conversation with an engineering friend so affected, this seems to be especially true in Verizon areas. Seems that AT&T is choosing to jack up the prices to get people off copper pair lines, whereas Verizon is choosing natural decay into poor service via cessation of maintenance.

    “Maybe the time has come for cell phone coverage to become a priority, responsibility and task for the feds. ”

    Despite your point regarding the Interstate system, i disagree in this case: not all of us (specifically: ME) agree that a mobile phone is a ubiquitous utility necessity, as most of us consider electricity, potable water, and sewer service to be. Seems to me that government works best when:

    * There is near-universal agreement for the need
    * There is a one-size-fits all solution (e.g. standardized highway design in terms of lane width, minimum number of lanes, etc.)

    I respectfully suggest another area where it seems to be time for government to step in: residential Internet service. Cable TV is effectively dead: anything available on a cable network/channel already is available as an Internet stream, or would be outside of marketing/licensing/policy considerations. Home hardwired digital phone service is being provided by “cable” or “telco” companies on poorly-suited “last mile” physical media: old copper-pair phone wires or coaxial cable. Technically, virtually everyone agrees that fiber optic connections to each home are the way of the future in terms of ultra-high symmetrical bandwidth and full service. The hang-ups are cost, and loss of existing monopoly rights by incumbents if they give up their creaky old coax or copper pairs to each residence. Besides allowing as much data to move as the customer is willing to pay for, fiber does not conduct lightning to the house, does not create ground loops, can’t be snooped/tapped anywhere near as easily, and is more immune to misbehaving neighbors with improper illegal hookups bringing down a neighborhood node for everyone (big problem for the cable companies).

    This Libertarian believes that Internet service has become a necessity of life, and should be provided as a common-carrier utility service. The critical point: one’s local government Internet monopoly provides **No Content** and *No special services*. In other words: just the connection to the Internet, *period* (and maybe a good DNS server as that is a basic and ubiquitous need). It is up to the customer to sign up with GMail or M$ Mail or Fastmail.fm or whichever other Email Service Provider they wish—if they even want email service. Same with “TV”: use Netflix, Hulu, each network’s own service—finally a’la carte programming choices! The cable and legacy phone companies are already using VOIP for their modern home phone services, so it is no leap at all to let each customer do the same, and have a choice of providers rather than one or two in a monopoly or oligopoly.

    The common carrier would need to be regulated and set up to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. By separating the specialized, contentious area of content, types of Internet services, and features from the core, shared, bottom-line essential utility of a basic connection to the Internet, user costs for the basic connection ought to remain the same with profoundly better (consistently faster, more reliable) service, or ought to come down in price. There would need to be some basic, sane rules about what constitutes system abuse vs. what impedes ’Net Neutrality.

    I would like to see government take this on first, as a more workable, clear-cut option. I don’t see that mobile phone service can be un-bundled in the same way (airwave time/connection vs. features). Wireless in some ways is relatively easier to deploy than any sort of cabled/wired service to every residence, yet wireless is unlikely to ever be as reliable and will never be as high-bandwidth as fiber cable. Nor will wireless ever be as secure as pure wired (esp. fiber). We’re a mobile society and we need both, though i argue that as with traditional copper-pair phone lines for so many decades, fiber-to-the-home core basic connection Internet service is the essential reliable service which needs to exist to “power” the 21st. century.

    Your point is well taken that the existing mobile phone reliability situation cannot go on. It is one reason amongst several for why i still do not own a mobile phone. My brother is currently in the U.S., looking for work. He has to *walk down the street* from the house in which he and i grew up to get a solid enough signal over T-Mobile and his crappy low-end Nokia Jokia phone to hold a conversation. He’s already missed several job-related callbacks, where the reception was *so* bad that his phone couldn’t even tell him he had a call! This is in a well-to-do upper-class neighborhood in southern California—a neighborhood with low-slung single family homes which in no way significantly impede R.F. signals—no valley of skyscraper problems, as in downtown S.F. Other than NIMBY tower location concerns, there is no reason this area should not have full, reliable coverage. Note: my brother finally arranged an in-person interview via Internet email, not the phone.

    If there is some way to un-bundle mobile phone service and make it a one-size-fits-everyone utility, sure, it may make sense for government to get in. Another option would be trying to figure out a way to lower barriers of entry so there could be more meaningful competition (some of that may be happening as i type. If they can get their act together, T-Mobile apparently wants to shake up the U.S. mobile phone market). If meaningful competition won’t work, as much as i hate to type it and don’t feel it will work out well in practice, heavier regulation of the existing oligopoly companies, specifically in terms of meeting a basic level of reliable signal service, may be a solution. Guessing: part of the problem now is that there may not be enough people making noise about their bad phone service. My brother doesn’t, as he does not normally live in the U.S. so seldom uses his lousy phone and T-Mobile, and because he has few agreeable pay-as-you-go options, neutering his power of voting with his feet to another provider. My friend Aaron doesn’t complain to his provider (i don’t know which one) for reasons not clear to me. My housemate/platonic love Louise doesn’t complain to AT&T because her iPhone is company-provided, and the company isn’t about to switch everyone out of a corporate long-term contract, especially since there is no company to switch *to* which will be guaranteed to be better for all employees everywhere they need to work (and the signal on the work campus is pretty solid with AT&T).

    “Can you hear me now?”
    “Nope.”

    • S.P.: Wow. Perhaps I should judge the quality of my posts by the quality of the commentary. Thanks for the (sorely needed) information re: tower space. Given the poor coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area, maybe these “dedicated private tower space companies” are not the best solution to providing high-quality reception. Many people who have written on this subject love to rave about how coverage quality is so wonderful in places like Singapore or Hong Kong (never visited either place). Yeah, well, try finding a Montana, Idaho or Alaska in either of those locations. Private companies don’t have sufficient financial incentive to cover many areas of the US, so does the federal government become the provider in this case?
      You make a valid point about how the Internet has become a necessity of life and present some very interesting ideas. I do feel surprised that you do not feel that cell phone service is not a “ubiquitous utility necessity,” considering a) how much we use phones for using the Internet, and b) how much trouble your brother had with his own job search.
      Which has gotten me wondering about a thought experiment. Let’s take your idea of a “common-carrier utility service” one step further, and add cell phone coverage. Let’s imagine a federal common-carrier utility service responsible for the entire US, and our taxes pay for fiber upgrades and true 100%-of-the-nation cell phone coverage. Now think about the current kaleidoscope of public agencies, utilities, private cell phone companies, phone tower providers, FCC & FAA rules, state, local and federal laws, et cetera.
      Would my hypothetical national service actually contain less bureaucracy than all that? Would it actually be cheaper?
      Thanks for a provocative comment.

      • Interesting conversation, which i am enjoying.

        “Given the poor coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area, maybe these “dedicated private tower space companies” are not the best solution to providing high-quality reception.”

        Many people do not want to accept that:
        * R.F. is difficult to provide everywhere, evenly
        * R.F. is not collateral-damage-free (it is a form of electromagnetic radiation)
        * R.F. tends not to be pretty: most people don’t like the looks of antennae

        Besides towers, cell antenna array panels can be and are mounted on buildings and other structures, whether as primary or fill-in points (i wouldn’t know and i’m not even sure there’s a distinction). A well-known, still popular(!) Sears location in a shopping center near here which used to be an actual ranch known as Hastings Ranch (and the shopping centers on two of the intersection corners still carry that name, as does the subdivision nearby) is outfitted with a good number of panels, which i am quite sure are important for a solid signal along that part of Interstate 210, the nearby highways, and businesses and some homes facing these arrays. No tower, so no tower company is involved.

        I could have more succinctly written: cellular providers are not limited to private tower companies. Some of them own their own towers. Some lease space on buildings or other structures, as can be seen somewhere in most urban areas if one looks carefully.

        Tightly spaced tall buildings tend to be hellish for higher-frequency R.F. signals. I expect there is a serious economic trade-off between ideal coverage and what that would take in terms of cell panels (possibly on at least one building on every corner of every block) to make it so. R.F. does a whole lot better following physics than humans’ desires, and tall human glass and steel structures reflect, deflect, and attenuate R.F. signals, esp. at high frequencies.

        Economics may be an issue, and still would be an issue with a federal monopoly. The difference being: the feds would hold a gun to our head and force payment (i.e. taxes), so they could more likely make a go of it, though i fear deeply for fraud, corruption, inefficiency, vast cost overruns, and likely no deployment in your or my lifetime (see: U.S. military: manufacture of unwanted equipment to keep people employed in selected congresscritters’ districts, $100 hammers or whatever it was [screwdriver? toilet seat? apocryphal?]).

        In any case, right now the companies are not limited by using only private tower companies. They are limited by physics, economics, and market forces (a big one of which is limited competition) which make “just barely usable” into “good enough to make some serious $$”.

        “Many people who have written on this subject love to rave about how coverage quality is so wonderful in places like Singapore or Hong Kong (never visited either place). Yeah, well, try finding a Montana, Idaho or Alaska in either of those locations.”

        Exactly (and i’ve never visited either foreign nation either).

        “Private companies don’t have sufficient financial incentive to cover many areas of the US, so does the federal government become the provider in this case?”

        Only once there’s a national strong/supermajority consensus that mobile phone service is as essential as clean, safe, potable running water and electricity. I’m not sure we ever quite reached the point of ubiquity with traditional hardwired formerly analog telephone service, though it was close. Would today’s mobile phone users be willing to pay a bit(?) more than they do now for the universal service fees and whatnot to build out in rural areas? We can see from Africa and some other places that, depending on the topography, wireless can be a lot easier to build out than a wired switched telephone infrastructure, so it could even be less onerous than the 20th. century’s buildout of twisted copper pair phone wires in rural areas. Or it could be poorly run, poorly managed, and cost more, not just in the funny-money inflated worthless pure dollar sense, but in inflation-adjusted terms.

        “I do feel surprised that you do not feel that cell phone service is not a “ubiquitous utility necessity,” considering a) how much we use phones for using the Internet, and b) how much trouble your brother had with his own job search.”

        Personal bias: i don’t have one, and i don’t want one. Seldom am i part of the “we” using an allegedly “smart” phone for Internet usage. I *have* used them… in fact, i’ve programmed/set up several iPhones for clients. I’ve been the passenger running Apple Maps (when that existed) on an iPhone 4s, and once i figured out how it worked, it worked quite well. I’ve optimized my personal website to suck less on one, and rebuilt a subsite of a very large non-profit’s website to work quite well on one (without having to make a separate mobile cop-out site). Seen them, used them, know what they can do… don’t want one.

        I am very obviously not a typical U.S. citizen: i don’t (can’t) work (regularly), i’m nearly always at home, and i dislike voice telephone conversations and typing text on ridiculously small keyboards (whether with thumbs, fingers, my nose, and/or any other appendage). I am seldom “on the go”. I learned as a broadcast engineer how hellish it can be to be tethered to an electronic leash, which to me is what an always-with, always-on personal communications device is. Further, i am unwilling to be part of the (in my opinion) broken business model of U.S. mobile phone service, which IMO costs far too much for what one gets and has too many gotchas/loopholes. If i made north of $50,000 a year, i might not care about the ridiculous business model/costs and might have one (and likely keep it turned off [at least for incoming phone calls] unless *I* wanted to call out). Only for about 2 years of my life did i ever make more than *half* that amount, and most of my working life well under half that amount. I have a much greater need to type messages like this (Internet) than yammer at a single individual (at a time) into a mouthpiece/microphone (mobile phone). And i do my typing at home, in a comfy chair with a full-sized keyboard.

        There is no hard medical proof that i’ve seen that holding a mobile phone next to one’s head or down in one’s pocket is proven harmful, yet since one can’t prove a negative, there’s no proof that it is *not* harmful. I already harbor serious doubts about the continuous radiation those of us in “civilized, modern” society continually expose ourselves to: TV and all forms of radio broadcasts, military R.F., household wiring, microwaves (ovens and point-to-point signals from military, telco, business, etc.) and more recently Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. I am not aware of there having been controlled studies of contemporary people with similar genetic and cultural (i’m thinking mostly food consumption, though also hygiene) backgrounds, where half are in our usual environment and half live in some very rare places on earth not continually bathed in human-made R.F. signals. By choice i’ve lived my whole life immersed in electrical radiation of many spectra… is that in any way part of my two incurable diseases? Uncontrolled experiment: we’ll never know. If i loved chatting on the phone, i probably wouldn’t mind having a mobile planted next to my head for hours at a time, or down in a pocket, spewing pretty strong R.F. I don’t, so i’d rather not increase my exposure further.

        The whole cacophony of R.F. signals makes it harder for each device to operate as there are more signals, even in different parts of the spectrum, if the signals are (relatively) strong enough. Human-made radio waves are miraculous things, but they’re not a panacea and i believe they are vastly overutilized, and that this overutilization leads to problems.

        My brother is a good example of a problem with all this: someone unwilling to pay a high, ongoing price for intermittent, limited usage (because he doesn’t live full-time in the U.S.). The U.S. cellular business model neglects his type and lets these people down. With government being one-size-fits-some-and-we’ll-force-it-to-fit-all, the default assumption for universal mobile phone service would likely be that Americans will want it universally all the time, not 2 months a year, some years when they’re in the homeland.

        “Let’s take your idea of a “common-carrier utility service” one step further, and add cell phone coverage.”

        Yes, a thought experiment! OK… i’ll temporarily pretend that features and user-paid price are not an issue, pretending that “we all want exactly the same mobile phone service” in terms of features, type of phone, and what we’re willing to pay.

        “Let’s imagine a federal common-carrier utility service responsible for the entire US, and our taxes pay for fiber upgrades and true 100%-of-the-nation cell phone coverage.”

        OK. I expect there would be a whole lot of screaming about higher taxes, but i’ll ignore that for the moment.

        “Now think about the current kaleidoscope of public agencies, utilities, private cell phone companies, phone tower providers, FCC & FAA rules, state, local and federal laws, et cetera.
        Would my hypothetical national service actually contain less bureaucracy than all that? Would it actually be cheaper?”

        It could, by stabbing another dagger in the remains of federalism, having the U.S. federal government usurp yet another power not explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution. It has the power and the historic exercise of the power to pre-empt most (not all) state and local laws regarding where towers may be sited, the amount of R.F. coming out of them (and how that might affect nearby citizens), NIMBY and aesthetic objections, and so forth.

        It would still need an obscene amount of cell panel space, and the use of eminent domain to get everything which would be needed would be likely to make more than half of U.S. citizens go into conniption fits about the gubmint usurping too much land (not just those well-known political entities predisposed and already making these rants). The extreme battles between environmentalists and nature aesthetic lovers when the feds start putting up more cell towers in our national parks (for even coverage everywhere for all citizens) and the feds would be newsworthy and interesting.

        It’s an interesting proposal and worth rational discussion, though i am still not sure that there is a way to un-bundle mobile phone service from features, phones, etc. the way Internet signal service can easily be unbundled from cable TV, voice telephone, email, and any other specific services currently offered by signal (cable, telco, satellite) Internet providers.

        There would probably be arguments against my proposal for ubiquitous ultra-high-speed inexpensive common-carrier ’Net neutral Internet service, as i expect there might still be a fair number of people who don’t consider residential Internet access a necessity. One such person is my 79-year-old mother, who has no form of Internet service at the house in which i grew up. So far she’s managed (with difficultly) to live without Internet access, and when she can’t work around it, contacts one of her two boys to go online for her and do what needs doing.

        I’ve never thought hard nor looked into real numbers in terms of the cost of rolling out ubiquitous fiber Internet vs. cellular. Probably cellular would be a fraction of the cost, BUT provide a fraction of the capabilities (speed, bandwidth, reliability). Today’s fiber optic cables vastly exceed today’s U.S. residential needs: a single fiber to each home is profoundly more than needed… today (which is why these few fibers can go to whole neighborhoods and service them adequately over antiquated copper pair wires [U-Verse] or coaxial cable [legacy cable TV company infrastructure]). One single fiber—today’s fiber—to each home ought to carry us at *least* through the next century, and likely beyond (but might be constrained today by the rest of the “Internet cloud” hardware… but that is more easily upgraded over time with no need to re-rip-up neighborhoods). Cellular will continue to evolve, but as best i can tell (and i’ve not studied it), nodes in urban areas are often saturated right now today (i’ve read of mobile phone provider hand-wringing and urgent provisioning of localized additional equipment for play-off games and the like).

        My fear is that the majority of sheeple will want the cellular, but not really care about the fiber to the home (they’re happy, i am royally screwed over. Another day in the life…). Though i personally today don’t much use cellular, i believe *both* services are necessary if the U.S. has even the slightest hope of remaining some form of relevant world leader in innovation and productivity.

        Necessity of cellular: sure. I am still not sold on it being as essential as residential very-high-speed symmetrical (blah blah what i typed above) Internet service.

        In terms of how to get there for either service, i do believe we have to go to one extreme or another: either full-on common-carrier heavily, effectively-regulated monopoly (government or private, as with some power companies), or vastly greater *real* competition amongst private companies, with vastly lower barriers to entry and none of the existing buddy-buddy lock-in of Big Corp (looking at you, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) and Big Gov (looking at you, Congress [both houses] and the executive branch [both of the big two loser parties] watching out for each other and ensuring each other lives the high life at all the rest of our expense. The existing systems—both cellular and Internet—best serve highly-placed corporate executives and government employees, serving the rest of us as an afterthought and with no real, true choices.

        Before i would feel strongly supportive of the federal government rolling out either cellular or fiber Internet universal service, i’d feel better seeing some recent (i.e. not back to the 1950s with the Interstate system) agreed-upon successes. I am one of those who vehemently (as in: willing to die for my beliefs, which may happen) oppose the not-really Affordable Care Act. On paper, one would think that i would be highly in favor of it: no income, unable to work regularly, unable to pay for medical insurance, unable to pay for expensive medical care beyond a certain high price. The problem is: i’ve lived through it (barely): California’s edition, e.g. Medi-Cal. “One-size-fits-some” very nearly killed me, and very effectively maimed me and is part of why i can’t presently work. One of my two incurable diseases, Crohn’s Disease, is poorly understood: they don’t know what causes it, and there is no cure for it. What standard medicine does to minimize symptoms has *MASSIVE* negative, often permanently harmful, side-effects. Many people with severe forms of this disease (as i have) don’t live long no matter what… especially when one of the primary treatments is cutting out more and more of the affected parts of the person’s small intestine until there’s nothing left.

        The point here is that any flavor of single-source health care (whether single-payer or otherwise) where someone other than the patient is footing the bill does not offer choices, and people who suffer from poorly-understood diseases *need* options! No doctor, whether “conventional western” or “alternative”, has been able to help me, beyond yanking me away from death’s door and stabilizing me in a form of limbo. I have needed to treat my own disease via diet (if you love food in any way, you don’t want to know). **There is no room for someone like me in the Affordable Care Act world**: they’d force me to take the standard meds, with the horrible side-effects… or deny me care and try to fine me, but HA HA HA i don’t earn money, so no taxes, nor get public benefits, so nothing there to take away!

        This is obviously a whole other discussion, and unlike many talkative Republicans i do agree that the current medical (“health”) care system pre-ACA is/was badly, irreparably broken… but i equally believe that ACA does not and cannot fix it, and is making things worse. If ACA had worked really well and everyone agreed it was awesome, i would have a lot more hope for the feds handling residential Internet service and/or monopolizing the provision of reliable, ubiquitous mobile phone signals/service.

  2. Personally I think society relies too much on technology on-demand. I don’t carry a mobile (or cell as you guys say) although I do have an ancient one which I can use to receive and make calls and texts if I need to.

    It drives me nuts seeing adults/teens/children/infants constantly on their phones/tablets etc especially when they are out supposedly socialising. The art of proper face-to-face conversation will soon be dead. As for phoning in about a job application, why don’t they just stay in one place where they have a strong signal to phone in. Or are you saying there are no strong signals any more?
    Stay well my friend 🙂
    Jude xx

    • Heyjude: Yes, but if it weren’t for mobile tech, how else could we feel so connected to the world and yet feel so isolated at the same time?
      I don’t know if proper face-to-face conversation will soon be dead. I have plenty of these precisely as a result of my online connections. And yet on the bus almost everyone has buried their noses in their phones or tables, so I certainly understand your point. And yet I have lively correspondence with people who live in countries I’ve never visited. Seems like we have rather the mixed blessing here.
      As for job applicants, they don’t know they live in areas where they have a weak signal. And here’s where I must wonder if every cell phone provider is guilty of false advertising. They all claim that they have all of the San Francisco Bay Area covered, but that is just not true. How do they define coverage? Probably not by quality and/or clarity of coverage.
      Vonn Scott Bair

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s