Street Level Coverage Maps
I'm enthusiastic about carriers offering street level coverage maps as I write about in yesterday's notes. But Mark van der Hoek (internal link), who's spent an entire career in cellular radio, disagrees with my point of view. He writes,
"The problem with offering such maps to the public is twofold:
1. Keeping them updated and accurate is a monumental task. I very much doubt that T-Mobile's maps are accurate everywhere, and the real world experience will change frequently. The truth is, they probably decided to do this, made a Hurculean effort, and the accuracy will go downhill from here.
2. One word: Expectations. The minute you print a map that looks like it is detailed, people assume it is accurate. If you are presenting a map that "a reasonable person would believe to be accurate", you are liable if it is not. So says at least one court case in California, and it's not at all hard to follow the reasoning. If you give people a PICTURE, it doesn't matter how many disclaimers appear in print along with the picture -- the only message that gets through to the majority of people is the picture."
"The wireless industry has painted itself into a corner with over-selling the quality of their service. They've done it with voice and we're already seeing the same problem crop up with E911. (Look for some major lawsuits over this in the next 5 years. It's going to be ugly.) These kind of maps are more of the same. If you tell people they have coverage, they will expect it to be there, every time and all the time, disclaimers notwithstanding."
"I really think it is to the industry's AND the public's advantage to live in the real world, where radio service is flaky. Given human nature, that means that maps cannot be made reasonably detailed and accurate. The minute you do that, most people will assume a level of accuracy that the carrier was not intending to convey."