Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular
SMS
<----- Which Way ----->
wrote:
>See:
>
>"http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/personal_technology/13330867.htm"
Not very favorable for good ole' Cingular ... not favorable at all.
And so it goes.
John Navas
In <4394dbbe$0$38644$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:31:28
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>[SNIP]
Posted to alt.cellular.cingular.
Axe to grind? Ya think? ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
SMS
The Radio Shack franchise owners are livid over losing Verizon and
gaining Cingular. They now will be selling service from the most poorly
rated carriers. They've gotten fat and happy converting unhappy Cingular
users to Verizon, and now they've lost that sales angle.
I'm anxious to see the full article, usually it's out in February, and
it ranks the carriers in a lot of metro areas.
Mike T.
>>
>> Not very favorable for good ole' Cingular ... not favorable at all.
>> And so it goes.
>
> The Radio Shack franchise owners are livid over losing Verizon and gaining
> Cingular. They now will be selling service from the most poorly rated
> carriers. They've gotten fat and happy converting unhappy Cingular users
> to Verizon, and now they've lost that sales angle.
>
Y'know, I don't get that one myself. I'm a current AND FORMER Verizon
customer, and was also a CINGULAR customer for a couple years, up until a
few days ago. I switched BACK to Verizon from Cingular (after previously
switching from Verizon TO Cingular), but I did so very reluctantly. I've
travelled all over the US except for California. My wife does a lot of
travelling, also. Here is how I see the Cingular Vs. Verizon thing:
Cingular GSM:
Good network (just as good as verizon)
Awesome selection of quality handsets
Cheap pricing for service, even before rollover is considered
Good customer service
No billing errors
Verizon:
Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM)
Poor selection of so-so quality handsets
Expensive, compared to just about anybody else (especially Cingular or T-Mo)
Iffy customer service
Frequent billing errors
Overall winner: CINGULAR!!! (it's not even close)
Yes, I'm a verizon customer, but I'm not happy that I had to dump Cingular.
I'm not happy at all about that. Now I get to baby-sit my cellular provider
again, going through every bill with a fine tooth comb. Sigh . . .
While I was a Cingular customer, I didn't even bother to READ most of my
bills after the first few, as Cingular just always got it right, and it
never varied more than a few bucks, so it wasn't worth my time to worry
about where the variance was. (the few times I did bother to check, it was
because of text or mms messages, and the charges were valid)
I only switched back to Verizon as there is no service (with Cingular
anyway) at either of our new work locations. The Cingular GSM network is
great, but it obviously doesn't do us any good if there are blind spots
where we need to use it often. Verizon's network has JUST AS MANY BLIND
SPOTS, but Verizon's blind spots don't currently affect us where we need to
use our cell phones most often. Thus we are reluctantly Verizon customers
again.
I know a lot of people dump Cingular for Verizon as they think Verizon has
better coverage. That just shows the power of advertising. All those
millions of dollars Verizon spends (Can you hear me now?) obviously is money
well spent. Many people now MISTAKENLY believe that Verizon has better
coverage than Cingular GSM. Neither network is better than the other. If
you dump Cingular for Verizon, you won't get better coverage. The joke's on
YOU in that case, as you just got the same coverage for a lot more money,
PLUS you get the headache of having to deal with Verizon's screwed-up
billing system.
Radio Shack should be proud to offer Cingular service. But who would buy
cellular service from the Rat Shack anyway? -Dave
SMS
> I know a lot of people dump Cingular for Verizon as they think Verizon has
> better coverage. That just shows the power of advertising.
It isn't just advertising. Every survey, including the ones by Consumer
Reports, and Consumer Checkbook magazine, confirm it. The advertising is
effective because it's based on reality, and because people are so angry
over poor coverage that they'll pay more money for good coverage.
Many people will never see the difference in coverage if they don't
travel a lot outside urban areas, or to states where off-network roaming
is required. But just in my area, the SF Bay Area, it's just common
knowledge that Verizon has the best coverage, by far. Even those people
that switch to Sprint or Cingular, because of handset selection or
price, acknowledge that Verizon's coverage is better.
That said, Cingular has greatly improved their coverage since the AT&T
Wireless acquisition, because they got that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum. But
there are still many areas where with Cingular you'll not have coverage,
where Verizon has it.
I carry a GSM phone on Cingular's network, as well as a Verizon phone
and an AT&T TDMA phone. Where Cingular does poorly is when you leave the
urban and suburban areas, and go up into the hills and valleys. You
often start roaming to AMPS on AT&T TDMA and Verizon CDMA, but there is
no AMPS to roam to on Cingular, unless you have a GAIT phone (which
almost no one has). These are areas where AMPS is likely to stay in
service after 2008, because it's uneconomical to install a sufficient
number of digital sites to cover the same amount of area.
Agent_C
wrote:
>Verizon:
Interesting post; it shows how different people's experiences can be.
>Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM)
In NYC and LA, the comparison isn't even close. The Verizon network is
superior by a wide margin.
>Poor selection of so-so quality handsets
Agreed. They have the worst selection of phones. Particularly
frustrating is that virtually everything in the current line have
cameras. I frequently visit government contractors, where camera
equipped phones are forbidden. I use and old Motorola 120e and have
one in the closet as a spare.
>Expensive, compared to just about anybody else (especially Cingular or T-Mo)
Of course! The best always costs more.
>Iffy customer service
I can only compare them to T-Mobile and they're a little better in my
experience. They both however, blow sunshine and daisies up you ass to
the point of madness.
>Frequent billing errors
Can't ever recall having any billing errors.
A_C
Mike T.
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4395cb50$0$38592$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Mike T. wrote:
>
>> I know a lot of people dump Cingular for Verizon as they think Verizon
>> has better coverage. That just shows the power of advertising.
>
> It isn't just advertising. Every survey, including the ones by Consumer
> Reports, and Consumer Checkbook magazine, confirm it. The advertising is
> effective because it's based on reality, and because people are so angry
> over poor coverage that they'll pay more money for good coverage.
>
That's just it though . . . you don't have to pay more. I've travelled
extensively over the past several years with Verizon and (Cingular GSM)
handsets. They both have dead spots. In most cases, where one handset is
dead, SO IS THE OTHER ONE. If one has signal and the other doesn't that
does not mean that coverage is better on the one that DOES have signal. In
many cases, you go a few miles or so down the road and the situation is
exactly reversed. (so how can it be said that one is better than the
other?)
I know that there are going to be people who have bad experiences with
coverage issues on Cingular AND people who have bad experiences with
coverage issues on Verizon. HOWEVER, I've seen this issue from both sides,
and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is better. It is ONLY
hype. Verizon has good coverage. So does Cingular. I'd rate them both an
8/10, as they both have just as many dead areas, but are FOR THE MOST PART
useful, when you need them to be. BOTH of them.
On a side note, Consumer Reports is (more often than not) WRONG. I don't
know how they manage to fuck up so badly, but I've found major discrepancies
in most articles written by Consumer Reports. Unfortunately, I have a
relative who keeps giving me a subscription to it as a gift. It is good for
a laugh now and then, if nothing else. I'm at the point now where I'd be
inclined to read CR to see what they 'recommend' AND THEN CROSS THAT OFF MY
LIST of items to consider buying. :) -Dave
Mike T.
>>T-Mo)
>
> Of course! The best always costs more.
>
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE, MAN. SHEESH!!! Saying Verizon is the best is only
true if you rank them in terms of cost from high to low. Not that Verizon
is bad, but they are certainly not BETTER than Cingular. AT best, they are
just more expensive. At best. -Dave
Elector
"Mike T." <he...@howyadoin.now> wrote in message
news:4395dc1e$0$84001$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Well lets see, I was the 403 Cellular One (ATC) now Cingular customer. In
the old days the last digits of the telephone number showed when you became
a customer. I will agree that they had at the time not only equal coverage
and maybe more in many areas, but their number one problem was billing. Now
remember this was before all these goodie plans and crazy phones. I used a
NEC bag phone, had an old Motorola (grey and bulky) and the service was
great.
After many years with them and never having a single invoice that was
correct I had no choice to join the lets see if I get this right:
"Bell Atlantic-NYNEX-Verizon etc." they had so many name changes I cannot
remember them all. They had similar service and they were not that different
in prices. But I have had little or no problems with billing errors. I have
had questionable charges and that pro-rata crap was confusing but on the
whole they have given instant credit and life went on.
For the travel I do between parts of NY and Canada the service has been
great. Not bad in Maine, New Hampshire, CT, or even Vermont. Single is great
also in Montreal, PQ. as it was with Cellular One (Cantel) now its called
"Bell Mobility" I think you find the selections to be what many folks are
today looking for of which I do not. (Cameras, Video Games, Email & Text,
V-Cast and those stupid ringtones and wallpapers) I just want to make a
phone call or receive one. All the rest is pure junk. We seem to have
forgotten what the cellular service was originally designed for. To make a
phone call.
Coverage, well no matter what company you choose at least find out the
coverage area for the location you use it the most. And go with that
carrier. Not with hype.
Elector
Marty
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from SMS
<scharf...@geemail.com>:
>See:
>
>"http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/personal_technology/13330867.htm"
I really have to wonder about these surveys. Personally, I don't think you
can really even believe a lot of the people that take them. If their
company recently "did them wrong", they may trash them to get back. If they
recently switched, they may give a great rating because they want to believe
they did the right thing. If their company is great in every way, but one
of their pet expectations isn't met, they're pissed. Or they're selfish,
and hope if their company gets a bad rating, the company will go more out of
their way to keep customers happier by giving them better deals or
something.
Personally, I've never had a call dropped with Cingular that I can remember,
the billing is fine, customer service has always been good. And having
hundreds of minutes of rollover is a nice feeling.
My inlaws had Sprint (Washington state), and stationary calls from their
home were constantly being dropped, so that they kept having to call back.
Very annoying.
--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
SMS
> and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is better.
The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of 50,000 people.
It's not hype. It's reality.
SMS
> DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE, MAN. SHEESH!!! Saying Verizon is the best is only
> true if you rank them in terms of cost from high to low. Not that Verizon
> is bad, but they are certainly not BETTER than Cingular. AT best, they are
> just more expensive. At best. -Dave
Again, the Consumer Reports survey polled 50,000 people across the
country. It's not hype. I know that some Cingular afficienados are upset
about the difference in network quality, but their anger doesn't change
the facts.
SMS
> I really have to wonder about these surveys. Personally, I don't think you
> can really even believe a lot of the people that take them. If their
> company recently "did them wrong", they may trash them to get back.
<snip>
But such trashing of carriers would occur for _all_ carriers, and would
cancel out. It's not possible that customers from every carrier except
Verizon decided to "get back" at their carrier. The number of people
polled was high enough to have a very low margin of error.
Verizon has realized that people will pay more for better coverage,
though in terms of ARPU, Verizon isn't measurably more expensive than
Cingular, and only recently passed Cingular in terms of ARPU (Cingular's
is decreasing, and Verizon's is increasing).
3Q2005 ARPU
-----------
Verizon: $50.13
Cingular: $49.85
Sprint: $65 (due to the very high ARPU of Nextel)
T-Mobile: $53
It's rather interesting that the carrier that purports to be the least
expensive, T-Mobile, had an ARPU that was about $3 higher than Verizon
or Cingular.
What you really want to look at, in terms of seeing how happy
subscribers are, is churn.
3Q2005 Churn
------------
Verizon: 1.3%
Cingular: 2.1%
Sprint: 2.1% (greatly helped by Nextel's very low churn)
T-Mobile: 2.9%
Remember, these are MONTHLY churn numbers, not quarterly. Extrapolated
over the course of a year, Verizon loses 14.4% of their current
subscribers, Cingular and Sprint lose 25.2% each, and T-Mobile loses 34.8%.
Mij Adyaw
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:439624a1$0$38583$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Mij Adyaw
"Mij Adyaw" <M...@DontWantNoEmail.net> wrote in message
news:vnqlf.14316$Wu.12788@fed1read05...
Dave
> Again, the Consumer Reports survey polled 50,000 people across the
> country. It's not hype. I know that some Cingular afficienados are upset
> about the difference in network quality, but their anger doesn't change
> the facts.
>
There is no difference in network quality. This from a Verizon customer, by
the way. -Dave
Mij Adyaw
significantly tip the scales.
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:A0rlf.184$QQ1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
GomJabbar
> Particularly frustrating is that virtually everything in the current line have
> cameras. I frequently visit government contractors, where camera equipped
> phones are forbidden.
That's one of my main beefs with the cellular carriers. Only Nextel
(before the Sprint merger) seemed unaffected. I used to have Nextel.
I miss their selection of quality phones without cameras. It's too bad
their data service was so far behind Verizon and Cingular, otherwise I
probably wouldn't have switched. I will say that connection quality
seems better with Cingular than it was with Nextel's IDEN service, but
Nextel's (voice) service was acceptable for me.
I was at a Nokia booth in the mall the other day. They had some nice
GSM phones that I would really be interested in. Why won't Cingular
sell them? I suspect it's because they are trying to impel the sending
of pictures, so they can charge their customers more money. Cingular
is not alone in this. However, if I was to buy a phone from Nokia
directly I would have to pay top dollar, and would not get any breaks
on the price.
Again, I HATE IT that the cellular carriers will not offer a selection
of quality phones without a camera! : ^ (
GomJabbar
>> Mike T. wrote:
>>>Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM)
> In NYC and LA, the comparison isn't even close. The Verizon network is
> superior by a wide margin.
I tend to believe the above statement that: 'In NYC and LA, the
comparison isn't even close.' I spend a lot of time in the NYC area
(although not really in Manhattan). When I am near Manhattan, I do
have trouble making and keeping a connection. This is especially true
regarding data service. Ask (almost) any NYC resident, and they will
tell you that Verizon beats the other majors hands down as far as
connection quality there. Perhaps it is the topography of Manhattan
that favors CDMA over GSM, or maybe Verizon just has more and/or better
placed towers. I can't really speak regarding LA, but I wouldn't be
surprised that Verizon is superior there also in regards to connection
quality.
Perhaps in other areas without the proliferation of skyscrapers, hills,
and population density, the various carriers have roughly simular
connection quality, varying neighborhood by neighborhood.
(PeteCresswell)
>There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in customer service and that one issue will
>significantly tip the scales.
That's what drove me off of Cingular and on to tMobile. Actually, not so much
"drove" as "enabled"....there was this tMob store practically across the street
and the people there seemed pretty good - whereas Cingular had closed it's
repair facility where I used to take dead phones and it's only retail facility
was 30-40 minutes away.
But once my tMob contract expires, I'll probably go back to Cingular.
For me, at least, signal strength/reliability trumps all - or, at least in
retrospect, Cingular didn't do anything to me while I was using them that was
bad enough to make me stay away....-)
--
PeteCresswell
SMS
> Agent_C wrote:
>>> Mike T. wrote:
>>>> Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM)
>
>> In NYC and LA, the comparison isn't even close. The Verizon network is
>> superior by a wide margin.
>
> I tend to believe the above statement that: 'In NYC and LA, the
> comparison isn't even close.' I spend a lot of time in the NYC area
> (although not really in Manhattan). When I am near Manhattan, I do
> have trouble making and keeping a connection. This is especially true
> regarding data service. Ask (almost) any NYC resident, and they will
> tell you that Verizon beats the other majors hands down as far as
> connection quality there. Perhaps it is the topography of Manhattan
> that favors CDMA over GSM, or maybe Verizon just has more and/or better
> placed towers. I can't really speak regarding LA, but I wouldn't be
> surprised that Verizon is superior there also in regards to connection
> quality.
Remember, Cingular had no presence in NYC for a long time. Then they
began using T-Mobile's network in exchange for letting T-Mobile use
their west coast network. AT&T had terrible capacity problems in NYC,
and now they are sharing their 800 Mhz spectrum with more users, after
the acquisition by Cingular.
CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
spectrum more efficiently.
> Perhaps in other areas without the proliferation of skyscrapers, hills,
> and population density, the various carriers have roughly simular
> connection quality, varying neighborhood by neighborhood.
This is possible. In South Florida, the carriers all seem very good. In
the SF Bay Area, Verizon has the same advantage that it has in NYC, with
far, far better coverage, and coverage in many parts of the Bay Area
where the other carriers have no coverage at all.
Jerome Zelinske
coverage ranks fourth. USCellular, cingular, and Sprint PCS all have
greater coverage.
Verizon's network is better in that it is 3G CDMA and PCS in stead of
cingular's 2g gsm and cellular.
What RadioShack in WI gains with the switch is they will be able to
offer both PCS and cellular services.
Someone who wants good advice, accessories, and repair service.
Jerome Zelinske
criteria as a starting point to build my own set of criteria.
Michael Wise
Agent_C <Agent-C-h...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:12:08 -0500, "Mike T." <he...@howyadoin.now>
> wrote:
>
> >Verizon:
>
> Interesting post; it shows how different people's experiences can be.
>
> >Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM)
>
> In NYC and LA, the comparison isn't even close. The Verizon network is
> superior by a wide margin.
The same goes for the San Francisco Bay Area.
--Mike
John Navas
In <4395bf62$0$38634$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:42:10
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>The Radio Shack franchise owners are livid over losing Verizon and
>gaining Cingular. They now will be selling service from the most poorly
>rated carriers. They've gotten fat and happy converting unhappy Cingular
>users to Verizon, and now they've lost that sales angle.
Proof? Or just more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda?
Enquiring minds want to know: Since that's how you feel, what the hell are
you doing hanging out here? ;)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas
In <439624a1$0$38583$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:54:09
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much better.
John Navas
In <439651cf$0$38577$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:06:54
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
>spectrum more efficiently.
Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and GSM are
roughly the same.
>This is possible. In South Florida, the carriers all seem very good. In
>the SF Bay Area, Verizon has the same advantage that it has in NYC, with
>far, far better coverage, and coverage in many parts of the Bay Area
>where the other carriers have no coverage at all.
Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a
rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
John Navas
In <mike-D4EA1F.2...@news.easynews.com> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:21:24
Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
Michael Wise
<rOulf.237836$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Interesting post; it shows how different people's experiences can be.
> >>
> >> >Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM)
> >>
> >> In NYC and LA, the comparison isn't even close. The Verizon network is
> >> superior by a wide margin.
> >
> >The same goes for the San Francisco Bay Area.
>
> Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
No it doesn't.
--Mike
Quick
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <439624a1$0$38583$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06
> Dec 2005 15:54:09 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike T. wrote:
>>
>>> and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is
>>> better.
>>
>> The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of
>> 50,000 people. It's not hype. It's reality.
>
> It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much
> better.
What was the result Powers came up with?
and did they poll Dave?
-Quick
Quick
Obviously they didn't poll Dave... or they would have had
different results.
-Quick
Agent_C
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a
>rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
John you keep on saying that, but other than your personal
observations, what data can you point to?
A_C
GomJabbar
isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
I suspect many others are having a different user experience.
Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
one doesn't count. ; - )
GomJabbar
Mike T.
"Mij Adyaw" <M...@DontWantNoEmail.net> wrote in message
> There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in customer service and that one issue will
> significantly tip the scales.
>
In Cingular's favor
Mike T.
> I was at a Nokia booth in the mall the other day. They had some nice
> GSM phones that I would really be interested in. Why won't Cingular
> sell them? I suspect it's because they are trying to impel the sending
> of pictures, so they can charge their customers more money. Cingular
> is not alone in this.
Last I checked, Cingular offered several models from Nokia . . . some with
cameras and some without. But you can always purchase a GSM Nokia phone off
ebay and pop your Cingular SIM into it, as long as it is an unlocked
hone. -Dave
John Navas
In <4fldp15r1pi9rf6dq...@4ax.com> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:31:58
-0500, Agent_C <Agent-C-h...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is to
infer it. Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange SIMs
(thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best coverage
currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which is
assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:
Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks
here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network
coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available. In
fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM coverage is
much better than Verizon, including many spots here in the Tri-Valley East
Bay.
If you do some checking with Google Groups, you'll see that Steven has a
personal vendetta against GSM based just on a coverage problem at his wife's
workplace that really pissed him off. Since then, even though he's now on
Verizon, he lurks here to keep beating his anti-GSM drum. My guess is that in
addition to having an axe to grind he craves attention and/or validation of
his switch to Verizon. You'll also find that I've documented objective
examples of clear bias, and that I have no technology bias -- I've
consistently stated that CDMA and GSM are comparably capable technologies.
John Navas
In <1133961611.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on 7 Dec 2005
05:20:11 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little
>isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
>I suspect many others are having a different user experience.
I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't
stay in one little spot -- just the opposite.
>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
>one doesn't count. ; - )
Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is to
infer it. Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange SIMs
(thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best coverage
currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which is
assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:
Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks
here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network
coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available. In
fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM coverage is
much better than Verizon.
John Navas
In <4396f536$0$50488$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> on Wed, 7 Dec
With the necessary bands (850 and 1900).
John Navas
In <6qwlf.32170$tV6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005
07:45:06 GMT, "Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <439624a1$0$38583$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06
>> Dec 2005 15:54:09 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike T. wrote:
>>>
>>>> and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of
>>> 50,000 people. It's not hype. It's reality.
>>
>> It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much
>> better.
>
>What was the result Powers came up with?
>and did they poll Dave?
John Navas
In <mike-3D9846.2...@news.easynews.com> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:22:47
GMT, Michael Wise <mi...@okean.invalid> wrote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Quick
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <6qwlf.32170$tV6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> on
> Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:45:06 GMT, "Quick"
> <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>> In <439624a1$0$38583$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06
>>> Dec 2005 15:54:09 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike T. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is
>>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of
>>>> 50,000 people. It's not hype. It's reality.
>>>
>>> It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much
>>> better.
>>
>> What was the result Powers came up with?
>> and did they poll Dave?
>
> <http://www.jdpower.com/>
(I guess they didn't poll Dave...) Interesting that VZW came in second
to T-Mobile in business service. I had the impression that VZW was
focusing on that (maybe they are?). I tried the "zoom in" feature 'cause
I thought I was going to get details... it made the chart bigger (I assume
the information is there but I didn't look further). I was wondering how
many businesses/size of those businesses/market share type of thing
was in the poll sample and for each provider. T-mobile, in second or
first. Who would of thunk?
-Quick
Agent_C
Thanks for the clarification John.
BTW, I recall your many appearances on TechTV; nice to have you here.
Regards,
A_C
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:46:29 GMT, John Navas
SMS
> (I guess they didn't poll Dave...) Interesting that VZW came in second
> to T-Mobile in business service. I had the impression that VZW was
> focusing on that (maybe they are?). I tried the "zoom in" feature 'cause
> I thought I was going to get details... it made the chart bigger (I assume
> the information is there but I didn't look further). I was wondering how
> many businesses/size of those businesses/market share type of thing
> was in the poll sample and for each provider. T-mobile, in second or
> first. Who would of thunk?
Not surprising that Verizon and T-Mobile tied for the top carriers in
the SF Bay Area. Look at the details though. Verizon was tops in
customer satisfaction, while T-Mobile was tops in cost. This is
essentially the story of these two carriers. It's why Circuit City
fought so hard to get these two carriers to sell in their stores. I was
surprised to see that at the Circuit City in Sunnyvale, Verizon actually
has a sign on the front of the store, next to the Circuit City sign.
However, there is something obviously wrong with the J.D. Power Survey,
when T-Mobile ranks first in business services, with Verizon second, and
Cingular third. Based on high speed data, Verizon should be first, with
Cingular second, and Sprint third. Maybe "Business satisfaction" was
based on cost, since Verizon blew everyone else away on call quality.
The Consumer Reports survey has historically been the benchmark of
cellular studies, with the largest sample, and best methodology.
Quick
Hmmm. I have no bias against GSM. I do have a personal
vendetta against Cingular. Mine resulted from a lack of
coverage at work and at home and the ETF. I probably
would have only been disappointed until I got the same
line from 2 different CSRs and one supervisor. (keep in
mind I'm in Silicon Valley). "Do you have a lot of electrical
equipment like PCs in your office building? Electrical
equipment can interfere with the phone signal." and to
address the other end "My phone doesn't work at my
house either"...
-Quick
SMS
If you look at all the surveys, by all the companies that do surveys,
Verizon has always been top-rated in terms of coverage. Cingular was
dead last until T-Mobile came along.
SMS
The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now,
just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate
and unbiased.
At the time of the Consumer Checkbook poll, AT&T was still TDMA/AMPS and
did very well.
What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay
Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or
AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often
not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage,
Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin.
SMS
Not according to J.D. Power or Consumer Reports. Personally, when I had
Cingular I did not find there customer support as lacking as the recent
survey indicate. What I did find is that they were apologetic about
their coverage issues, and were not dishonest as to the cause of them.
Alas, it didn't really matter to me the reasons they gave for the poor
coverage, and it didn't matter that they were five dollars cheaper per
month than Verizon.
Michael Wise
<VpElf.240604$zb5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >> Interesting post; it shows how different people's experiences can be.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Good network (just as good as Cingular GSM)
> >> >>
> >> >> In NYC and LA, the comparison isn't even close. The Verizon network is
> >> >> superior by a wide margin.
> >> >
> >> >The same goes for the San Francisco Bay Area.
> >>
> >> Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
> >
> >No it doesn't.
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Yes, the rest of us who motor about the Bay Area as well as the subset
of the 50,000 people surveyed will just have to agree to disagree with
one or two people here.
--Mike
Michael Wise
<eoElf.240593$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little
> >isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
> >I suspect many others are having a different user experience.
>
> I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't
> stay in one little spot -- just the opposite.
>
> >Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
> >review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
> >one doesn't count. ; - )
> Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks
> here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network
> coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
> One/AirTouch).
The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in
the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled
them before being absorbed into the VZW morph.
--Mike
SMS
> Hmmm. I have no bias against GSM. I do have a personal
> vendetta against Cingular. Mine resulted from a lack of
> coverage at work and at home and the ETF. I probably
> would have only been disappointed until I got the same
> line from 2 different CSRs and one supervisor. (keep in
> mind I'm in Silicon Valley). "Do you have a lot of electrical
> equipment like PCs in your office building? Electrical
> equipment can interfere with the phone signal." and to
> address the other end "My phone doesn't work at my
> house either"...
When I canceled my Cingular service they were much more honest. I am
also in Silicon Valley. I got the whole story about how AT&T and Verizon
had been around much longer, and had had more time to install more cell
sites than Cingular, and how they were working to improve coverage. Left
unsaid by them, were the facts about the inherent advantages of 800 Mhz
versus 1900 Mhz PCS in terms of both the number of sites required, and
the penetration into buildings. But the bottom line was that in a very
urban part of Silicon Valley, I had no coverage at home, and my wife had
no coverage at work. I couldn't wait for them to catch up to the other
carriers. At the time, they also had severe capacity issues, due to
over-selling of their network through very attractive promotions.
The acquisition of AT&T was especially good for Cingular in the west,
where they didn't have any 800 Mhz spectrum. Coverage is much improved
now, though the lack of AMPS on most GSM phones hurts coverage in remote
areas of the Bay Area, as well as in places where AMPS is the only
service available.
I've been in some suburbs of the Bay Area, where the ONLY coverage was
AMPS, and it only worked outside! This is out in Contra Costa county in
Moraga. People from the neighborhood would drive down to the high school
and park in the lot to use their cell phones. Of course these same
people were probably fighting any cell sites in their area, while at the
same time complaining about lack of coverage.
SMS
> The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in
> the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled
> them before being absorbed into the VZW morph.
The two were very close in coverage, almost indistinguishable. What's
hurt Cingular is that even though the AT&T AMPS network is still
operating, GAIT phones (GSM/TDMA/AMPS) were never sold to the general
public in Cingular's Western region (though other Cingular regions were
selling them, and AT&T was selling them when they first deployed GSM).
Cingular's position on GAIT, for the western region, was basically that
since they had no TDMA or AMPS network there was no reason to promote
GAIT since it would mean a lot of off-network roaming.
In fact, GAIT phones were available from Cingular in the west, but you
had to know exactly who to contact at Cingular's Western Regional
Headquarters in Pleasanton in order to buy one. I happened to find out
the contact due to one of my web sites, and my contacts with Cingular's
spokesperson. I referred about eight people to the proper contact at
Cingular, and most of them ended up with GAIT phones.
SMS
> Yes, the rest of us who motor about the Bay Area as well as the subset
> of the 50,000 people surveyed will just have to agree to disagree with
> one or two people here.
LOL. It's SOP for Navas to make up the stories about Cingular. Nothing
ever changes.
Mike T.
> The Consumer Reports survey has historically been the benchmark of
> cellular studies, with the largest sample, and best methodology.
I guess the best isn't nearly good enough, then. The last cellular provider
article I read in CR had me ROFLMAO. For example, they rated the nextel
network as having better coverage than Cingular. All over the U.S., that is
just simply WRONG. I carried both (nextel and cingular GSM) handsets for
years. I carried various brands/models of nextel handsets because I had no
choice (employer insisted). No matter where I went (many states, constantly
on the move), I had to more often than not use my personal Cingular handset
to make business calls, as the nextel network is useless.
BTW, before someone states the obvious . . . nextel didn't always carry JUST
motorola brand handsets. I carried various motorola brand handsets and
other brand handsets on the nextel network. They all had the following in
common . . . no signal, (not able to make calls with STRONG SIGNAL), most
incoming calls go STRAIGHT TO VOICEMAIL, and voicemail often delayed for
HOURS (in areas with strong signal, also). -Dave
Mike T.
> vendetta against Cingular. Mine resulted from a lack of
> coverage at work and at home and the ETF. I probably
> would have only been disappointed until I got the same
> line from 2 different CSRs and one supervisor. (keep in
> mind I'm in Silicon Valley). "Do you have a lot of electrical
> equipment like PCs in your office building? Electrical
> equipment can interfere with the phone signal." and to
> address the other end "My phone doesn't work at my
> house either"...
>
> -Quick
What a bunch of BS. (what the CSRs and supervisor told you). I've carried
various makes/models of GSM phones on Cingular. I service computer
networks. Not once have I seen a GSM phone that would lose signal because
of electrical equipment, and I was often using GSM handsets near several
running computers, some of which had the cases open. (ie MAXIMUM RF
leakage)
Ironically, our new Verizon LG VX5200 (CDMA?) handsets will lose signal if
my wife's computer is turned on (if the handset is in the same room). Just
THAT computer (homebuilt, 3GHz P4, 1Gig RAM, Geforce 6600 graphics . . .
nothing unusual for a non-gaming system) . So I've seen that it can happen
with CDMA handsets. But GSM handsets are not bothered at all by the same
computer that will cripple the CDMA handsets. Not sure what it is about my
wife's computer that is causing the VX5200 to lose signal, but I've
deliberately tested the VX5200 near several other running computer systems,
and it works just fine. -Dave
SMS
>> The Consumer Reports survey has historically been the benchmark of
>> cellular studies, with the largest sample, and best methodology.
>
> I guess the best isn't nearly good enough, then. The last cellular provider
> article I read in CR had me ROFLMAO. For example, they rated the nextel
> network as having better coverage than Cingular.
I don't remember seeing that. I think that later surveys should be much
better, now that the migration to GSM is nearly complete.
Not sure where you are, but in the San Francisco Bay Area, three years
ago, Cingular was in fact tied in last place with Nextel in terms of
coverage (not counting MetroPCS). This is because it was the first and
only GSM system in the area, and was strictly 1900 Mhz. It was
absolutely horrible, and they also over-sold the network so there were
capacity issues as well. If you look at the reports on dead zones,
Nextel did much better than Cingular, normalized for the number of
subscribers.
Mike T.
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:439721ea$0$38595$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Mike T. wrote:
>> "Mij Adyaw" <M...@DontWantNoEmail.net> wrote in message
>> news:E9rlf.14320$Wu.7488@fed1read05...
>>> There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in customer service and that one issue will
>>> significantly tip the scales.
>>>
>>
>> In Cingular's favor
>
> Not according to J.D. Power or Consumer Reports. Personally, when I had
> Cingular I did not find there customer support as lacking as the recent
> survey indicate.
Neither did I, but I do find Verizon's customer service sorely lacking.
Every month, verizon would screw up my bill. I'd call them, they would
ADMIT to the mistake, and refuse to correct it. The bastards. Basically,
their own billing system was adding overage charges to my bill that
shouldn't have been there, ACCORDING TO VERIZON. (note the ACCORDING TO
VERIZON part) And yet they'd refuse to correct it. Finally, at two years
AND TWO DAYS into my 2-year contract with Verizon, I called to cancel and
they wanted to charge me almost $400 in ETF. I raised HOLY HELL about that,
and they (VERY RELUCTANTLY) agreed to "waive" the ETF. How nice of
hem. -Dave
SMS
I've had excellent results with Verizon's customer service. When I
called to apply a discount to our plans, based on employer, they did so
without any problem. They over-rode something in their computer to allow
me to buy a specific handset that was in very short supply and high
demand, and was normally limited to new customers only. I haven't had
any billing errors. That's about the extent of my contact to customer
service in the past five years or so.
To get me to change carriers at this point, would be difficult, because
via my prepaid GSM phone I see just how many places Cingular lacks
coverage where Verizon works fine, and it's a non-trivial number. Also,
I still have 8:00 p.m. nights on Verizon, which I use a lot. And of
course Cingular's least expensive plan is $7.50 more than what I'm
paying on Verizon (actually even more, because Cingular has higher
non-governmental fees as well).
John Navas
In <43972b18$0$38615$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:34:01
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
Pot ... kettle ... black.
John Navas
In <439720fc$0$38595$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:50:53
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now,
>just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate
>and unbiased.
Not true. Consumer Reports does well on some things; poorly on others.
>What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay
>Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or
>AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often
>not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage,
>Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin.
Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
--
SMS
> The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in
> the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled
> them before being absorbed into the VZW morph.
The Blue Cellular One/AT&T TDMA/AMPS network was indeed very, very good.
The reason that Cingular coverage, even with the combined Blue and
Orange networks is now so much worse than Verizon, is because there are
almost no phones that can access the AMPs part of the Blue network. This
may not be an issue in some parts of the country, but in the San
Francisco Bay Area, there are many isolated and remote areas where the
only coverage is still AMPS. And most subscribers to a carrier never
really understood that their phone was switching to the old analog
network, they just knew that their phone worked. I go hiking a great
deal, and in the Santa Cruz mountains, the East Bay Hills, and Marin
county, there is often ONLY AMPS coverage, no GSM, no TDMA, no CDMA.
There are vast areas of the U.S. (i.e. much of Alaska) that are covered
only by AMPS (and that will continue to be covered only by AMPS into the
foreseeable future due to sparse population and the expense of
installing digital service which requires many more towers than AMPS)).
It's really too bad that GAIT, or at least GSM/AMPS phones never were
popular. I guess it relates to the desire for less expensive, and
smaller handsets, and the fact that most GSM countries have no analog.
Nokia used to offer an "analog sleeve" for some of their GSM phones, but
it wasn't a popular product, and was never offered in the Cingular areas
where Cingular lacked an AMPS network.
Ironically, the evolution of the B side cellular network began with
Pacific Bell's PacTel Cellular in 1984. Then Pacific Bell sold the B
side network to AirTouch, then Vodafone bought AirTouch, then Cellular
One was a brand from AT&T and Vodafone AirTouch until Vodafone AirTouch
dropped out to become part of the newly formed Verizon Wireless on the A
side. Verizon was comprised of Vodafone AirTouch, Bell Atlantic, and
GTE. The Pacific Bell re-entered the cellular business with their 1900
Mhz GSM offering.
I guess some people never leave the urban or suburban core, and don't
care about good coverage in outlying areas. For them, Cingular or
T-Mobile are probably just fine.
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <439720fc$0$38595$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:50:53
> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now,
> >just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate
> >and unbiased.
>
> Not true. Consumer Reports does well on some things; poorly on others.
>
> >What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay
> >Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or
> >AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often
> >not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage,
> >Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin.
>
> Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
No they don't.
--Mike
SMS
> No they don't.
>
> --Mike
Mike, why do you even respond?
"You can't have a debate with someone who is willing to make up the
facts." Eric Hauser, former press Secretary to Bill Bradley
Scott
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:xNulf.237829$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
>>spectrum more efficiently.
>
> Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and GSM
> are
> roughly the same.
Shown with what? Your unprofessional, uncontrolled basic user "tests" that
fall far short of even the most basic industry test? Your opinion as
nothing more than a common user does not substitute for real numbers.
>
>>This is possible. In South Florida, the carriers all seem very good. In
>>the SF Bay Area, Verizon has the same advantage that it has in NYC, with
>>far, far better coverage, and coverage in many parts of the Bay Area
>>where the other carriers have no coverage at all.
>
> Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a
> rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
>
Quit whining.
Scott
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> 05:20:11 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little
>>isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
>>I suspect many others are having a different user experience.
>
> I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't
> stay in one little spot -- just the opposite.
And others have poor coverage- what's your point?
>
>>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
>>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
>>one doesn't count. ; - )
>
> Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is
> to
> infer it.
As long as you use all data and don't rely solely on personal experience.
This would disqualify you as one who can infer.
>Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
> coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange
> SIMs
> (thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
> SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best
> coverage
> currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which
> is
> assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:
They most certainly accurately reflect the current state of affoairs- that's
why the numbers are as they are. Cingular has presented a textbook story of
how not to merge in the cellular industry.
>
> Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular)
> networks
> here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single
> network
> coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
> One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
> Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available.
> In
> fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM
> coverage is
> much better than Verizon.
>
> --
That is not analysis- analysis requires facts and all you presented was
opinion. No facts- no analysis.
You'll have to do better than that.
Scott
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <439720fc$0$38595$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:50:53
> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>The Bay Area Consumer Checkbook did a poll a few years ago, but for now,
>>just go by the Consumer Reports poll, which everyone agrees is accurate
>>and unbiased.
>
> Not true. Consumer Reports does well on some things; poorly on others.
True, but statements made in the articles accompanying the last three
cellular surveys show an alarming lack of knowledge in cellular technology
and business practices. They don't do cellular very well.
>
>>What the bigger problem is now is that in many outlying areas of the Bay
>>Area, there is no GSM coverage at all, but you can often find CDMA or
>>AMPS coverage. You're fine in cities and suburbs with Cingular (often
>>not so fine with T-Mobile or Sprint), but for the widest coverage,
>>Verizon is the leader by a very wide margin.
>
> Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
>
You have no proof, do you?
Scott
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Mike T. wrote:
>>
>>> and I DO NOT BUY THE HYPE that Verizon's coverage is better.
>>
>>The Consumer Reports report was based on the polling of 50,000 people.
>>It's not hype. It's reality.
>
> It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much better.
>
Scott
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <43972b18$0$38615$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:34:01
> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Wise wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the rest of us who motor about the Bay Area as well as the subset
>>> of the 50,000 people surveyed will just have to agree to disagree with
>>> one or two people here.
>>
>>LOL. It's SOP for Navas to make up the stories about Cingular. Nothing
>>ever changes.
>
> Pot ... kettle ... black.
>
> --
Michael Wise
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Michael Wise wrote:
>
> > The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in
> > the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled
> > them before being absorbed into the VZW morph.
>
> The Blue Cellular One/AT&T TDMA/AMPS network was indeed very, very good.
> The reason that Cingular coverage, even with the combined Blue and
> Orange networks is now so much worse than Verizon, is because there are
> almost no phones that can access the AMPs part of the Blue network. This
> may not be an issue in some parts of the country, but in the San
> Francisco Bay Area, there are many isolated and remote areas where the
> only coverage is still AMPS. And most subscribers to a carrier never
> really understood that their phone was switching to the old analog
> network, they just knew that their phone worked. I go hiking a great
> deal, and in the Santa Cruz mountains, the East Bay Hills, and Marin
> county, there is often ONLY AMPS coverage, no GSM, no TDMA, no CDMA.
I'm very well aware of the reason why. I'm just stating the obvious:
that Cingular's Bay Area foot print is vastly inferior to VXZ's
CDMA/AMPS one.
> There are vast areas of the U.S. (i.e. much of Alaska) that are covered
> only by AMPS (and that will continue to be covered only by AMPS into the
> foreseeable future due to sparse population and the expense of
> installing digital service which requires many more towers than AMPS)).
Preaching to the choir.
>
> It's really too bad that GAIT, or at least GSM/AMPS phones never were
> popular. I guess it relates to the desire for less expensive, and
> smaller handsets, and the fact that most GSM countries have no analog.
That and the fact that its cheaper for carriers to be things like "Pure
Digital"...which is nothing more than marketing spin to make their
primarily digital only service sound more attractive when it is in fact
inferior...at least as far as coverage goes.
> Ironically, the evolution of the B side cellular network began with
> Pacific Bell's PacTel Cellular in 1984. Then Pacific Bell sold the B
> side network to AirTouch, then Vodafone bought AirTouch, then Cellular
> One was a brand from AT&T and Vodafone AirTouch until Vodafone AirTouch
> dropped out to become part of the newly formed Verizon Wireless on the A
> side. Verizon was comprised of Vodafone AirTouch, Bell Atlantic, and
> GTE. The Pacific Bell re-entered the cellular business with their 1900
> Mhz GSM offering.
That's not exactly what happened in all markets.
in the SF Bay Area, C1 was THE A side carrier and GTE wireless was the B
side one.
On the East Coast, Bell Atlantic Mobile (BAM) was the B side carrier. A
series or mergers with BAM, AirTouch, Vodaphone, and GTE Wireless (all B
side CDMA...except for Vodaphone, which was E. Coast GSM) produced
Verizon (from "veritas"). Because AirTouch held stake in the Bay Area A
side carrier, C1/ATTWS Bay Area, they (Verizon) were forced to divest
that interest in C1 due to their B side representation. At that point C1
Bay Area became part of ATTWS (ATTWS had already consolidated A side
TDMA on the E. Coast).
C1 Bay Area was never an ATTWS brand...although ATT were investors along
with AirTouch.
> I guess some people never leave the urban or suburban core, and don't
> care about good coverage in outlying areas. For them, Cingular or
> T-Mobile are probably just fine.
Precisely. I personally would not even consider having a phone not
capable of AMPS and a provider not offering AMPS. There's just too many
places with no digital signal (whether it be TDMA, CDMA, GSM or PCS
[CDMA]).
--Mike
John Navas
In <9tadnd93ipzwHgre...@adelphia.com> on Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:50:50
-0700, "Scott" <how...@you.do> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:eoElf.240593$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> In <1133961611.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on 7 Dec 2005
>> 05:20:11 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little
>>>isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
>>>I suspect many others are having a different user experience.
>>
>> I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't
>> stay in one little spot -- just the opposite.
>
>And others have poor coverage- what's your point?
Just what I wrote, no more and no less. What part of that don't you
understand?
>>>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
>>>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
>>>one doesn't count. ; - )
>>
>> Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is
>> to
>> infer it.
>
>As long as you use all data and don't rely solely on personal experience.
>This would disqualify you as one who can infer.
We'll just have to agree to disagree (as usual).
>> Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
>> coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange
>> SIMs
>> (thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
>> SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best
>> coverage
>> currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which
>> is
>> assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:
>
>They most certainly accurately reflect the current state of affoairs- that's
>why the numbers are as they are. Cingular has presented a textbook story of
>how not to merge in the cellular industry.
Nonsense.
>> Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular)
>> networks
>> here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single
>> network
>> coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
>> One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
>> Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available.
>> In
>> fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM
>> coverage is
>> much better than Verizon.
>That is not analysis- analysis requires facts and all you presented was
>opinion. No facts- no analysis.
>
>You'll have to do better than that.
I did.
John Navas
In <PJKdnZHFCpU...@adelphia.com> on Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:47:30 -0700,
"Scott" <how...@you.do> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:xNulf.237829$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> In <439651cf$0$38577$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:06:54
>> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
>>>spectrum more efficiently.
>>
>> Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and GSM
>> are
>> roughly the same.
>
>Shown with what? ...
Authoritative citations. Something you don't seem to know much about.
Scott
>
>>>>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
>>>>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
>>>>one doesn't count. ; - )
>>>
>>> Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do
>>> is
>>> to
>>> infer it.
>>
>>As long as you use all data and don't rely solely on personal experience.
>>This would disqualify you as one who can infer.
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree (as usual).
No we don't- you just need to provide some independent data to support your
opinions. Problem is, you won't find any.
>
>>> Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
>>> coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange
>>> SIMs
>>> (thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with
>>> blue
>>> SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best
>>> coverage
>>> currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices,
>>> which
>>> is
>>> assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:
>>
>>They most certainly accurately reflect the current state of affoairs-
>>that's
>>why the numbers are as they are. Cingular has presented a textbook story
>>of
>>how not to merge in the cellular industry.
>
> Nonsense.
Not nonsense at all- they alienated almost half of their new subscriber base
by charging additional unnecessary fees to have full network functionality
and coverage available to them. Their customer satisfaction numbers have
plummeted and their net adds pale in comparison to the competition. I
haven't looked at churn numbers, but I would expect to see the highest in
the industry.
Even with two different paltforms to service, I'd be willing to be that the
new Sprint has very few (if any) of these growing pains and shows a much
better pattern of customer satisfaction and synergy at the same point in
their merger. They are already showing much stronger finanacials.
>
>>> Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular)
>>> networks
>>> here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single
>>> network
>>> coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by
>>> Cellular
>>> One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to
>>> PacBell).
>>> Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available.
>>> In
>>> fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM
>>> coverage is
>>> much better than Verizon.
>
>>That is not analysis- analysis requires facts and all you presented was
>>opinion. No facts- no analysis.
>>
>>You'll have to do better than that.
>
> I did.
Where? In another newsgroup? You sure didn't do it here.
Scott
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <PJKdnZHFCpU...@adelphia.com> on Wed, 7 Dec 2005
> 17:47:30 -0700,
> "Scott" <how...@you.do> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:xNulf.237829$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>> In <439651cf$0$38577$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005
>>> 19:06:54
>>> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
>>>>spectrum more efficiently.
>>>
>>> Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and
>>> GSM
>>> are
>>> roughly the same.
>>
>>Shown with what? ...
>
> Authoritative citations. Something you don't seem to know much about.
>
Your own little user tests are far from authoritative.
John Navas
In <439780cf$0$38577$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:39:42
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Michael Wise wrote:
>
>> No they don't.
>Mike, why do you even respond?
Probably because he's more mature than you are.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
John Navas
In <43977daf$0$38654$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:26:23
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Michael Wise wrote:
>
>> The operative word here being arguable. In its time, C1's footprint in
>> the Bay Area was tops...with GTE Wireless' a close second. GTE equalled
>> them before being absorbed into the VZW morph.
>
>The Blue Cellular One/AT&T TDMA/AMPS network was indeed very, very good.
And still is.
>The reason that Cingular coverage, even with the combined Blue and
>Orange networks is now so much worse than Verizon, is because there are
>almost no phones that can access the AMPs part of the Blue network.
Nonsense. The blue network has been overlaid with GSM.
>It's really too bad that GAIT, or at least GSM/AMPS phones never were
>popular. I guess it relates to the desire for less expensive, and
>smaller handsets, and the fact that most GSM countries have no analog.
It actually relates to the fact that most people don't share your biases.
>I guess some people never leave the urban or suburban core, and don't
>care about good coverage in outlying areas. For them, Cingular or
>T-Mobile are probably just fine.
It's also fine in rural areas.
John Navas
In <43972738$0$38661$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:17:28
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>... I am
>also in Silicon Valley. I got the whole story about how AT&T and Verizon
>had been around much longer, and had had more time to install more cell
>sites than Cingular, and how they were working to improve coverage. Left
>unsaid by them, were the facts about the inherent advantages of 800 Mhz
>versus 1900 Mhz PCS in terms of both the number of sites required,
Urban myth.
>and
>the penetration into buildings.
It's not that simple: While 1900 penetrates walls less well than 800/850, it
does a better job of penetrating small openings (e.g., windows). In general
the difference tends to be relatively small.
>But the bottom line was that in a very
>urban part of Silicon Valley, I had no coverage at home, and my wife had
>no coverage at work.
And there we have it -- the reason for your vendetta.
>The acquisition of AT&T was especially good for Cingular in the west,
>where they didn't have any 800 Mhz spectrum. Coverage is much improved
>now,
On 1900, not 800. Yet another clueless claim.
>though the lack of AMPS on most GSM phones hurts coverage in remote
>areas of the Bay Area, as well as in places where AMPS is the only
>service available.
Not really. But then you're on Verizon, so that's why you don't know how good
the GSM coverage is.
>I've been in some suburbs of the Bay Area, where the ONLY coverage was
>AMPS, and it only worked outside! This is out in Contra Costa county in
>Moraga. People from the neighborhood would drive down to the high school
>and park in the lot to use their cell phones. Of course these same
>people were probably fighting any cell sites in their area, while at the
>same time complaining about lack of coverage.
Rubbish. There is actually good GSM coverage there.
John Navas
In <43971ca5$0$38655$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:32:22
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>However, there is something obviously wrong with the J.D. Power Survey,
>...
So you say, because it doesn't agree with your personal agenda.
John Navas
In <43971ca5$0$38655$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:32:22
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>The Consumer Reports survey has historically been the benchmark of
>cellular studies, with the largest sample, and best methodology.
Nonsense.
John Navas
In <43972ea2$0$35124$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> on Wed, 7 Dec
2005 13:49:06 -0500, "Mike T." <he...@howyadoin.now> wrote:
>BTW, before someone states the obvious . . . nextel didn't always carry JUST
>motorola brand handsets. I carried various motorola brand handsets and
>other brand handsets on the nextel network. ...
And what brands would those iDEN handsets be?
John Navas
In <439732d8$0$38647$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:07:05
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
Nonsense.
John Navas
In <439721ea$0$38595$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:54:51
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Mike T. wrote:
>> "Mij Adyaw" <M...@DontWantNoEmail.net> wrote in message
>> news:E9rlf.14320$Wu.7488@fed1read05...
>>> There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in customer service and that one issue will
>>> significantly tip the scales.
>>>
>>
>> In Cingular's favor
>
>Not according to J.D. Power or Consumer Reports. Personally, when I had
>Cingular I did not find there customer support as lacking as the recent
>survey indicate. What I did find is that they were apologetic about
>their coverage issues, and were not dishonest as to the cause of them.
>
>Alas, it didn't really matter to me the reasons they gave for the poor
>coverage, and it didn't matter that they were five dollars cheaper per
>month than Verizon.
It didn't matter because your mind was made up and closed.
GomJabbar
I guess he's talking to himself.
John Navas
In <1134024279....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on 7 Dec 2005
22:44:39 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Wow! I count 7 posts in a row by the same author!
>
>I guess he's talking to himself.
Pretty much, because it clear that your mind is closed.
Mike T.
>>BTW, before someone states the obvious . . . nextel didn't always carry
>>JUST
>>motorola brand handsets. I carried various motorola brand handsets and
>>other brand handsets on the nextel network. ...
>
> And what brands would those iDEN handsets be?
>
From memory, a couple of handsets I carried on the nextel network were
audiovox and sanyo brands. But that was a long time ago. I understand that
recently nextel was carrying nothing BUT motorola brand handsets.
Unfortunately, I have been an unwilling carrier of nextel handsets for
several years. BTW, what the heck is iden? If that is what nextel is using
right now, it sucks raw eggs. -Dave
Jerome Zelinske
Jerome Zelinske
Motorola made iden phones. And nextel has always and only been an iden
carrier.
SMS
> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:xNulf.237829$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <439651cf$0$38577$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:06:54
>> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
>>> spectrum more efficiently.
>> Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and GSM
>> are
>> roughly the same.
>
> Shown with what? Your unprofessional, uncontrolled basic user "tests" that
> fall far short of even the most basic industry test? Your opinion as
> nothing more than a common user does not substitute for real numbers.
You can see a good study of spectral efficiency at
"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pipa/courses/Spring03_HW/IS290_WirelessComm/2_Riseofthe3GEmpire.pdf"
SMS
> No we don't- you just need to provide some independent data to support your
> opinions. Problem is, you won't find any.
Navas never has any data. That's his mode of operation.
> Not nonsense at all- they alienated almost half of their new subscriber base
> by charging additional unnecessary fees to have full network functionality
> and coverage available to them. Their customer satisfaction numbers have
> plummeted and their net adds pale in comparison to the competition. I
> haven't looked at churn numbers, but I would expect to see the highest in
> the industry.
To be fair, it is not totally Cingular's fault that their numbers are so
bad since the acquisition of AT&T.
AT&T Wireless totally bungled the GSM conversion and WNP and there are
several news stories that reported that if not for these two occurrences
they would not have been acquired, in fact it well might have gone the
other way. Cingular did make it worse by screwing existing AT&T
customers when they wanted to convert fully to Cingular's network. It is
just bad management. What on earth were they thinking, "let's help the
net additions of T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon?
It may seem like Cingular totally bungled the acquisition, but without
much imagination, there are ways that they could have done it a lot worse.
SMS
I thought that too. Maybe the other poster can tell us who else was
making iDEN phones in the past.
DecaturTxCowboy
> BTW, what the heck is iden?
SMS
> Your own little user tests are far from authoritative.
Every study, both on the technical and business side, has touted the
advantages of CDMA in terms of spectral efficiency.
For example, Business Week wrote, regarding the merger of AT&T Wireless
and Cingular,
"Verizon's 39.7% cash-flow margins are already 74% higher than those of
Cingular and AT&T Wireless. Verizon can produce such fat margins because
it has an efficient network that enables it to add network capacity
without incurring huge costs. A first-rate network has helped Verizon
lure customers at an impressive rate -- the 1.5 million net new
subscribers added in the fourth quarter last year were twice the 770,000
won by Cingular and AT&T Wireless."
Also, while Cingular has tried, in their advertising, to make much of
the fact that they now have the largest number of subscribers in the
U.S., this will not last long if the current trends of net additions
continues.
(1000's)
3Q 2005
Verizon: 49,291 with 1,918 additions, churn 1.3%
Cingular: 52,300 867 additions, churn 2.3%, churn 1.2%
2Q 2005
Verizon: 47,373 with 1,921 additions,
Cingular: 51,442 with around 1 million additions (Cingular revised
their total subscriber number downward for 2Q, but didn't state if the
reason was less additions than originally reported, or if it was due to
some other error).
In any case, Verizon is only 3 million subscribers below Cingular, but
is adding around 1 million more new subscribers per quarter than
Cingular. So by the second or third quarter of 2006, Verizon will likely
once again be in the lead. Cingular is really hurt by their very high
churn rate.
While who is first or second doesn't mean much when they are so close,
it does help in marketing and advertising because of free in-network
calling. Subscribers want to be on a network where they can choose a
plan with less peak minutes because they can make most of their calls
in-network.
It's no accident that CDMA is the leading digital network in the U.S.,
with far more users than GSM.
SMS
> Mike T. wrote on [Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:12:08 -0500]:
>> I know a lot of people dump Cingular for Verizon as they think Verizon has
>> better coverage. That just shows the power of advertising.
>
> Verizon DOES have better coverage.
>
> I have a friend who can't use his cingular phone from his house, my
> verizon phone works just fine. I also have friends who had the same
> problem with Sprint, and my verizon phone had 5 bars.
The relative coverage quality does vary by geographic area, but
technically Verizon will have better coverage, if you have a tri-mode
phone, versus a digital-only Cingular phone. There is simply no way
around this, AMPS coverage is still very good, and even after the FCC
permits it to be turned off in 2008, it will still remain in service in
areas where digital service is not available.
There are areas of the country, where Verizon was not the A or B side
cellular carrier (and hence is 1900 Mhz only), where the Cingular
digital coverage should be better, i.e. South Florida.
> I have had my verizon phone go out of coverage in one place, a middle of
> nowhere paintball field. Everyone else's phones also had no service.
This is often the case in my area, the San Francisco Bay area (not on a
paintball field, but in the outlying areas in mountains and valleys that
are not close to a city or town). Now some people will claim that they
like to not be available when relaxing on a hike or whatever, but this
is really a cop-out because for many people, the very time they most
want their phone to work is when they are out in the boondocks.
Sprint is also very bad in my area, because of the lack of towers, and
the shorter range of the 1900 Mhz sites.
Mij Adyaw
coverage in unusable at my home in Laguna Niguel California, however, Sprint
has full signal strength at my home. One mile down the street, Verizon
coverage is better than Sprint. Do you get my drift? In some areas, Cingular
provides the best signal.
That is all that there is to it and it is not possible to draw any other
conclusions. On the other hand, Sprint and Cingular customer service suck
when compare to Verizon. Verizon is very customer oriented while Sprint and
Cingular could care-less about the customer as long as it does not eat too
much into the bottom line.
The horrible Sprint and Cingular customer service will cause Verizon to win
every year on all counts. It is really that simple.
-mij
These is no one carrier that provides the best coverage. "SMS"
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:43987c4d$0$38629$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Marty
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com>:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <PJKdnZHFCpU...@adelphia.com> on Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:47:30 -0700,
>"Scott" <how...@you.do> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:xNulf.237829$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>> In <439651cf$0$38577$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:06:54
>>> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
>>>>spectrum more efficiently.
>>>
>>> Nonsense -- as I've shown before, the spectral efficiency of CDMA and GSM
>>> are
>>> roughly the same.
>>
>>Shown with what? ...
>
>Authoritative citations. Something you don't seem to know much about.
How about:
http://wbt.sys-con.com/read/41168.htm
"Spectral efficiency is another important factor when considering the
relative advantages of potential evolutionary pathways. While some have
questioned the spectral efficiency performance of GSM/EDGE as compared to
CDMA2000, in fact the introduction of GSM features such as adaptive
multirate codec, frequency hopping, and automated planning have virtually
eliminated any practical differences in spectral performance."
May not be the last word, but it seems authoritative, judging from all the
big words. :)
--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
Marty
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "Scott"
<how...@you.do>:
>
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:MlHlf.241453$zb5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <43972b18$0$38615$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:34:01
>> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Wise wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, the rest of us who motor about the Bay Area as well as the subset
>>>> of the 50,000 people surveyed will just have to agree to disagree with
>>>> one or two people here.
>>>
>>>LOL. It's SOP for Navas to make up the stories about Cingular. Nothing
>>>ever changes.
>>
>> Pot ... kettle ... black.
>>
>> --
>John...Navas...moron.
>
I see little difference between the posting style and techniques (ie, "did,
did not!" and "poo poo on you" type of posts) of either of you. If you
would put each other in your killfile, it would greatly increase the ratio
of information to flames in the forum (and probably cut out 75% of the
traffic). Otherwise, you all only subtract from your credibility by acting
like rug rats.
SMS
> Somewhere around Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:56:44 -0700, while reading
> alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "Scott"
> <how...@you.do>:
>
>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:MlHlf.241453$zb5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>
>>> In <43972b18$0$38615$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:34:01
>>> -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Wise wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the rest of us who motor about the Bay Area as well as the subset
>>>>> of the 50,000 people surveyed will just have to agree to disagree with
>>>>> one or two people here.
>>>> LOL. It's SOP for Navas to make up the stories about Cingular. Nothing
>>>> ever changes.
>>> Pot ... kettle ... black.
>>>
>>> --
>> John...Navas...moron.
>>
> I see little difference between the posting style and techniques (ie, "did,
> did not!" and "poo poo on you" type of posts) of either of you. If you
> would put each other in your killfile, it would greatly increase the ratio
> of information to flames in the forum (and probably cut out 75% of the
> traffic). Otherwise, you all only subtract from your credibility by acting
> like rug rats.
Please be careful about your attributions here. I do not engage in these
moronic "did so, did not" fact-free responses that are favored by Navas
and a couple of other posters. I have in fact kill-filed Navas long ago
to even avoid any temptation to respond in-kind. It would be best if
everyone stopped responding to his non-responses, but that just isn't
human nature I guess.
Agent_C
wrote:
>May not be the last word, but it seems authoritative, judging from all the
>big words. :)
The big words are what gives me pause...
A_C