reply to discussion
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50
  1. #31
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:25:40 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >
    >>Scott wrote:

    >
    >>> All surveys are self-selected. No survey is done where the respondent
    >>> is required to answer questions.

    >>
    >>Bingo!

    >
    > That's not what self-selected means. Learn something about statistics.
    >


    Sorry, John- I use more statistics in the first hour of my day than you
    have ever been able to glean from your Google searches.



    See More: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea




  2. #32
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea

    Scott wrote:

    > I'm sorry, Mr. Novice- stating that the source of their data is "experience
    > with national carriers" (which is the small print now used in their ads)
    > hardly qualifies as a respected third party. A respected third party that
    > believed the claim to be valid would most certainly allow the use of their
    > name. And the fact that they are spinning it this way makes the data far
    > less credible than a comapny stating that they are using their own data.


    Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
    every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.

    Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
    company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
    have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
    provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect. Navas
    and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.



  3. #33
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea

    Scott wrote:

    > Bull****. Unless you can prove that CR subscribers have a skewed view
    > of service and coverage, it is a very real-world sample.


    According to The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Mar.,
    1978), pp. 247-251, "The Consumer Reports subscriber is found to be
    richer, better educated, and more likely to own a fairly wide range of
    durable goods."

    Given the demographics, it'd be interesting to know whether the CR
    subscriber base, which is better educated and more affluent than the
    general public, is more or less critical of goods and services.

    In any case, any difference cancels out because it would be present no
    matter which carrier the subscriber was reviewing. CR surveys are
    designed to eliminate this sort of bias, so any differences between the
    CR subscriber base and the general population cancel out.




  4. #34
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    At 16 Feb 2007 17:28:11 +0000 John Navas wrote:

    > >CR surveys are
    > >designed to eliminate this sort of bias, so any differences between

    the
    > >CR subscriber base and the general population cancel out.

    >
    > That's simply untrue.


    Yet also irrelevant. The survey can stand alone as a specific population-
    i.e. "4 out of 5 dentists."

    Like it or not, "a survey of CR subscribers found brand X better than Y"
    carries weight as a data point. And your statistics 101 excuses for it's
    lack of validity might be a reason to keep it out of your doctoral
    thesis, but not a reason to invalidate it's value as a reference for
    people researching cell service. In many ways, a limited population
    survey is MORE useful. For example, I would prefer a survey of "best
    luggage" to be comprised only of, say, frequent business travelers, or
    airline pilots, over one culled from the "general population," many of
    whom don't travel or travel infrequently.





  5. #35
    clifto
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    Scott wrote:
    > Sorry, John- I use more statistics in the first hour of my day than you
    > have ever been able to glean from your Google searches.


    A-ha! An actuary! http://users.aol.com/fcas/jokes.html

    --
    "Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
    they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
    -- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy



  6. #36
    clifto
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:40:25 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >>Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
    >>every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.
    >>
    >>Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
    >>company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
    >>have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
    >>provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect. Navas
    >>and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.

    >
    > Wrong on all counts.


    He's not wrong on all counts. If he is, please point me to the released
    copy of the Cingular survey.

    --
    "Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
    they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
    -- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy



  7. #37
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea

    clifto wrote:
    > John Navas wrote:
    >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:40:25 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >>> Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
    >>> every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.
    >>>
    >>> Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
    >>> company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
    >>> have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
    >>> provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect. Navas
    >>> and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.

    >> Wrong on all counts.

    >
    > He's not wrong on all counts. If he is, please point me to the released
    > copy of the Cingular survey.


    "http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/14/for_bjs_ignoring_item_pricing_is_a_bargain/?page=2"

    "Telephia sent a letter this month to officials at all four major
    wireless companies, saying it didn't know how Cingular concluded that it
    drops the fewest calls. The San Francisco research firm also said it
    couldn't say whether Cingular's advertising is fair, legal, or responsible.

    "While we can't evaluate the specific analysis Cingular uses as the
    basis of its nationwide claim, Telephia can confirm that Cingular does
    have a statistically significant lower dropped-call rate than the
    competition across some market/time period groupings," said Sid Gorham,
    Telephia's chief executive, in the letter."

    Wow! And in some market/time period groupings the other carriers have
    fewer dropped calls. Not to mention calls that weren't dropped because
    they couldn't be made in the first place! Cingular built a whole
    national advertising campaign on data that the survey company says
    doesn't back up the claims in the ads. I guess Telephia is more than a
    bit worried about their reputation after what Cingular pulled, and
    needed to issue that statement.

    What happened is that Cingular was desperate to find some data, some
    survey, anywhere, that they could point to, after taking a beating in
    respectable, statistically sound, surveys from Yankee Group, J.D. Power,
    Consumer Reports, and others. The fact that the best they could do is to
    make up conclusions that the data doesn't support, is pretty telling.

    Note to Cingular. Follow Sprint's lead. Make up some metric that can't
    be measured, such as "most powerful," and you won't get so much bad
    publicity. "Cingular has the Most Potent Network in the U.S."



  8. #38
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:40:25 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >
    >>Scott wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm sorry, Mr. Novice- stating that the source of their data is
    >>> "experience with national carriers" (which is the small print now
    >>> used in their ads) hardly qualifies as a respected third party. A
    >>> respected third party that believed the claim to be valid would most
    >>> certainly allow the use of their name. And the fact that they are
    >>> spinning it this way makes the data far less credible than a comapny
    >>> stating that they are using their own data.

    >>
    >>Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
    >>every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.
    >>
    >>Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
    >>company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
    >>have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
    >>provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect.
    >>Navas and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.

    >
    > Wrong on all counts.
    >



    No, John- I was very correct on all counts. Cingular can't provide the
    potential consumer with the source of their claim. Much shadier than a
    company publicly using its own data.



  9. #39
    james g. keegan jr.
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    In article <[email protected]>,
    SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    > clifto wrote:
    > > John Navas wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:40:25 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
    > >>> Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
    > >>> every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.
    > >>>
    > >>> Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
    > >>> company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
    > >>> have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
    > >>> provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect. Navas
    > >>> and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.
    > >> Wrong on all counts.

    > >
    > > He's not wrong on all counts. If he is, please point me to the released
    > > copy of the Cingular survey.

    >
    > "http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/14/for_bjs_ignoring_item_pric
    > ing_is_a_bargain/?page=2"
    >
    > "Telephia sent a letter this month to officials at all four major
    > wireless companies, saying it didn't know how Cingular concluded that it
    > drops the fewest calls. The San Francisco research firm also said it
    > couldn't say whether Cingular's advertising is fair, legal, or responsible.
    >
    > "While we can't evaluate the specific analysis Cingular uses as the
    > basis of its nationwide claim, Telephia can confirm that Cingular does
    > have a statistically significant lower dropped-call rate than the
    > competition across some market/time period groupings," said Sid Gorham,
    > Telephia's chief executive, in the letter."
    >
    > Wow! And in some market/time period groupings the other carriers have
    > fewer dropped calls. Not to mention calls that weren't dropped because
    > they couldn't be made in the first place! Cingular built a whole
    > national advertising campaign on data that the survey company says
    > doesn't back up the claims in the ads. I guess Telephia is more than a
    > bit worried about their reputation after what Cingular pulled, and
    > needed to issue that statement.
    >
    > What happened is that Cingular was desperate to find some data, some
    > survey, anywhere, that they could point to, after taking a beating in
    > respectable, statistically sound, surveys from Yankee Group, J.D. Power,
    > Consumer Reports, and others. The fact that the best they could do is to
    > make up conclusions that the data doesn't support, is pretty telling.
    >
    > Note to Cingular. Follow Sprint's lead. Make up some metric that can't
    > be measured, such as "most powerful," and you won't get so much bad
    > publicity. "Cingular has the Most Potent Network in the U.S."


    don't you just love it when they walk into openings like that?



  10. #40
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea

    james g. keegan jr. wrote:

    > don't you just love it when they walk into openings like that?


    When they advertise like Cingular did with their "fewest dropped calls"
    claim, they are actually hurting themselves more than they realize. Even
    if Cingular's claim had turned out to be true, to the part of the
    audience that has learned to pick apart advertising claims they've just
    admitted that their network is worse than the competition in the metrics
    that actually matter.



  11. #41
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:47:06 -0700, Kurt <[email protected]> wrote
    in <[email protected]>:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> [REPOST]
    >>
    >> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
    >> better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
    >> AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
    >>
    >> For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
    >> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requestt...>
    >>
    >> Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
    >> get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
    >> of no coverage.
    >>
    >> The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
    >> few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

    >
    >But Cingular maps, from my experience, are also less than accurate.


    In my experience they are pretty good.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  12. #42
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea

    Dennis Ferguson wrote:

    > Look at the area around 94020 on the Sprint Coverage map, or on the
    > Verizon map showing coverage for the old America's Choice plan. Notice
    > the latter calls this "Roaming or No Service". There is AMPS coverage
    > all through there, I've even seen a cell tower on a hill in one of the
    > parks off of Pescadero Creek Road.


    Or 95043.

    Yes, I've also found that the "Roaming or No Service" areas are AMPs
    areas, while if there is really no service it is a "No Service" area,
    though you can often pick up AMPS for quite a ways into the "No Service
    Area." I found the same thing down in San Benito County earlier this week.

    It's not just that though, it's that in areas with both AMPS and
    digital, of course they show the area as digital, even though you get an
    AMPS signal further from the tower than a digital signal. This is where
    Navas is most confused, he thinks that the presence of digital coverage
    means the absence of AMPS, without understanding that AMPS is a superset
    of digital, that usually will have wider range of coverage. Of course he
    actually does understand all this, he just pretends to not understand
    because the lack of AMPS on Cingular's GSM is one reason why their
    coverage in this area is so much poorer than Cingular's coverage.



  13. #43
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:55:43 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >It's not just that though, it's that in areas with both AMPS and
    >digital, of course they show the area as digital, even though you get an
    >AMPS signal further from the tower than a digital signal.


    Not true.

    >This is where
    >Navas is most confused, he thinks that the presence of digital coverage
    >means the absence of AMPS,


    Nope.

    >without understanding that AMPS is a superset
    >of digital,


    It is in many cases, but not in all cases.

    >that usually will have wider range of coverage.


    Nope.

    >Of course he
    >actually does understand all this, he just pretends to not understand
    >because the lack of AMPS on Cingular's GSM is one reason why their
    >coverage in this area is so much poorer than Cingular's coverage.


    Simply you have nothing to back up your claims, you stoop to meaningless
    ad hominem, which only serves to discredit your claims.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

    "A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
    "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
    than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]



  14. #44
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

    On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 02:07:19 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (David
    Arnstein) wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
    >>few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

    >
    >I still get value from Verizon AMPS. Very frequently, I'll be inside a
    >building and getting a weak signal. My handset will
    >1. fail to begin a digital call
    >2. automatically switch to analog mode
    >3. begin the call in analog mode.
    >
    >In such cases, I experience a noisy conversation, but at least I can
    >complete the call.
    >
    >The location is my office, 95050 (Sunnyvale).
    >
    >I just switched to a new handset TODAY, so I don't know what to expect
    >when I return to the cube farm. But my new handset does have AMPS.


    That can have value in some areas, albeit time limited since AMPS will
    be going away soon, but my own preference is to use a superior digital
    handset, and a good external antenna when I need extra signal
    capability.

    I've yet to find an indoors location where signal is available on a
    different carrier (including AMPS) but my new Cingular RAZR V3xx can't
    get a signal. It's a truly excellent handset.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  15. #45
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea

    David Arnstein wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
    >> few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

    >
    > I still get value from Verizon AMPS. Very frequently, I'll be inside a
    > building and getting a weak signal. My handset will
    > 1. fail to begin a digital call
    > 2. automatically switch to analog mode
    > 3. begin the call in analog mode.


    Yes, this is true. My sister-in-law hadn't realized how much she was
    even using AMPS until she mistakenly bought a handset that didn't
    support it. She works in an area of SF that is in a valley, and is
    inside a hospital. The digital coverage is marginal deep inside the
    hospital on all systems, and the hospital doesn't want repeaters inside.
    With an AMPS capable phone she could usually make or receive calls, with
    digital only, forget it.



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.