T-Mobile claims to customers via T-Mobile's website that its coverage in north Medina on a 45-foot pole is "Excellent", but then, in order to win its lawsuit against Medina, T-Mobile concurrently swears to a judge that on a 45-foot pole its coverage in north Medina is almost non-existent. How can both be true?
Since we first started checking in June 2014, T-Mobile has consistently given its coverage in north Medina, using a 45-foot tower, its highest rating of "Excellent", showing no gaps in coverage, and showing indoor connectivity throughout the North Point neighborhood, Medina and the SR-520 corridor. To customers and consumers, T-Mobile pushes its promise that its service is excellent.
But, T-Mobile and its cell-tower partner, Independent Towers (now owned by billion-dollar company, Vertical Bridge) can only prevail in their current lawsuit against Medina if they prove to the court that T-Mobile's service is horrible.
How can wireless coverage be simultaneously Excellent and Horrible, T-Mobile? To consumers, T-Mobile swears that it has “excellent service coverage” in north Medina; but then to the court, it swears it has horrible, barely-there service coverage. (In its court filings, T-Mobile asserts that, using a 45-foot temporary tower, it effectively has no service, and that the minimum height necessary to cure its "significant gap in coverage" (sic) is an 80-foot tower).
One of T-Mobile's claims must be a lie. T-Mobile, are you lying to consumers, or to the judge?
Also, we recently uncovered more of T-Mobile’s apparent sleights of hand in its court filings. T-Mobile’s secret-until-now apple-to-apple data comparisons (which we recently discovered) do not support T-Mobile’s in-court claims of horrible coverage at 45 feet. T-Mobile didn't submit to the court its secret-until-now apple-to-apple data comparisons; instead, it chose to cherry-pick and submitted to the court, and to Medina residents, data comparisons that appear on their face to be apples-to-apples comparisons, but are, in fact, apples-to-oysters comparisons; and their oysters, to no one’s surprise, allegedly “prove” that T-Mobile's coverage is awful at 45 feet. (In depicting the T-Mobile data from its December 2014 testing, the apples-to-apples maps supplied to the City in early 2015 (but withheld from the residents, until July 2015) show essentially no gap in T-Mobile's coverage (i.e., it has excellent coverage) in the Fairweather Park neighborhood at 45 feet (see Exhibit I in our recent motion), but the apples-to-oysters coverage maps submitted to the court by T-Mobile in May 2015 (and submitted to the residents at the same time) are used by T-Mobile to "show" a "significant gap in coverage" at 45 feet (see their map at page 27 of their court filing).)
The maps that T-Mobile filed with the court are misleading in another important way, as well: they don't show the coverage provided to Medina by the other nearby sites that comprise their network, in Medina, Hunts Point, Clyde Hill, Yarrow Point and Seattle.
We demand that T-Mobile play by the rules. T-Mobile's concurrent and yet opposite claims of excellent coverage and horrible coverage cannot both be true. We want answers, and we are determined to get them.
We need you by our side to protect Medina’s parks for good. If you want to help Save Medina’s Parks, please take action and donate now. Your donation will help fund our litigation expenses, and any extra funds will be used to maintain and preserve Medina’s parks. Thank you for doing your part to help Save Medina’s Parks. #ItTakesAVillageToSaveAVillage