| |  | | 
06-22-2008, 08:05 PM
|
#16 | | Guest |
Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:3bnt549decp6h2u5g5hfijqvh6av55jmq6@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:55:09 -0500, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx>
> wrote:
>
>>The Bob wrote:
>>> Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> amazed us all with the following in
>>> news:3fbt541e1vu1528bllf1geu9lkgb1qs6gm@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:34:47 -0500, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 4phun wrote:
>>>>>> And the best of all - you have to use SPRINT which may be the USA's
>>>>>> worse cellular provider according to public opinion.
>>>>> That's for customer service, not network coverage.
>>>>
>>>> Sprint with most dropped calls,
>
> BOGUS STATISTICS !!!!
>
>>http://www.cellular-news.com/story/22188.php
>>
>>Which Carrier Is Winning the War On Fewest Dropped Calls?
>>
>>With all major wireless carriers claiming to offer the fewest dropped
>>calls, wireless management services provider mindWireless used its
>>database of call data to research the facts of the claims. Using a
>>sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between January
>>1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
>>Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
>>calls, nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best,
>>most reliable network.
>
>
> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring what
> they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A duplicate call
> placed within 2 minutes.
And how would you have them measure?
| | |  | |
Cell Phone Links
| Advertisement
| | |
06-22-2008, 08:12 PM
|
#17 | | Guest |
At 22 Jun 2008 18:19:25 -0500 Ron wrote:
> BOGUS STATISTICS !!!!
>
> >http://www.cellular-news.com/story/22188.php
> >
> >Which Carrier Is Winning the War On Fewest Dropped Calls?
> >
> >With all major wireless carriers claiming to offer the fewest dropped
> >calls, wireless management services provider mindWireless used its
> >database of call data to research the facts of the claims. Using a
> >sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between January
> >1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
> >Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
> >calls, nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best,
> >most reliable network.
>
>
> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring what
> they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A duplicate call
> placed within 2 minutes.
True...
> I often place calls to relatives that also have AT&T and manys the
> time within 2 minutes I think of something else I forgot to say and
> call them back. But those calls would have been counted as dropped
> calls.
Yes- but in all likelihood, those "benign" callbacks would happen equally
across all carriers. Therefore, the "extra" callbacks users of some
carriers experienced either indicate another reason for callbacks, such as
dropped calls. Either that or Verizon's and T-Mo's customers are far more
forgetful than Sprint's as a whole, and think of more things to say after
hanging up... | | | | |
06-22-2008, 08:14 PM
|
#18 | | Guest |
At 22 Jun 2008 18:12:56 -0500 Ron wrote:
> Going by Houston, Tx, Los Angeles, New York City,
> and Miami; where I have experience, I can categorically state I have
> experienced 90% fewer dropped calls with AT&T than Sprint.
And how long has it been since you were with Sprint? At least 2 or 3 years
by your postings, IIRC. You're hardly a reliable data point (for a variety
of reasons...)
| | | | |
06-22-2008, 11:29 PM
|
#19 | | Guest |
4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:fdca25b4-c6e2-4608-be2b- 6552f916df93@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> 3g Apple iPhone Video Review
>
>
>
> Added: June 12, 2008 (More info)
> This is a video review of the upcoming 3g apple..
>
> Killer video - must watch
>
>
>
Thanks, Vic, for wasting our time.... | | | | |
06-23-2008, 02:51 AM
|
#20 | | Guest |
On Jun 23, 12:29*am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> 4phun <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote in news:fdca25b4-c6e2-4608-be2b-
> 6552f916d...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > 3g Apple iPhone Video Review
>
> >
>
> > *Added: *June 12, 2008 *(More info)
> > This is a video review of the upcoming 3g apple..
>
> > Killer video - must watch
> >
>
> Thanks, Vic, for wasting our time....
Gottcha Larry ? ;>) | | | | |
06-23-2008, 06:03 AM
|
#21 | | Guest |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:12:13 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>At 22 Jun 2008 18:19:25 -0500 Ron wrote:
>
>> BOGUS STATISTICS !!!!
>>
>> >http://www.cellular-news.com/story/22188.php
>> >
>> >Which Carrier Is Winning the War On Fewest Dropped Calls?
>> >
>> >With all major wireless carriers claiming to offer the fewest dropped
>> >calls, wireless management services provider mindWireless used its
>> >database of call data to research the facts of the claims. Using a
>> >sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between January
>> >1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
>> >Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
>> >calls, nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best,
>> >most reliable network.
>>
>>
>> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring what
>> they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A duplicate call
>> placed within 2 minutes.
>
>True...
>
>> I often place calls to relatives that also have AT&T and manys the
>> time within 2 minutes I think of something else I forgot to say and
>> call them back. But those calls would have been counted as dropped
>> calls.
>
>
>Yes- but in all likelihood, those "benign" callbacks would happen equally
>across all carriers. Therefore, the "extra" callbacks users of some
>carriers experienced either indicate another reason for callbacks, such as
>dropped calls. Either that or Verizon's and T-Mo's customers are far more
>forgetful than Sprint's as a whole, and think of more things to say after
>hanging up...
>
You are just guessing here. We have no way to know. | | | | |
06-23-2008, 07:21 AM
|
#22 | | Guest |
Ron wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:12:13 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> At 22 Jun 2008 18:19:25 -0500 Ron wrote:
>>
>>> BOGUS STATISTICS !!!!
>>>
>>>> http://www.cellular-news.com/story/22188.php
>>>>
>>>> Which Carrier Is Winning the War On Fewest Dropped Calls?
>>>>
>>>> With all major wireless carriers claiming to offer the fewest dropped
>>>> calls, wireless management services provider mindWireless used its
>>>> database of call data to research the facts of the claims. Using a
>>>> sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between January
>>>> 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
>>>> Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
>>>> calls, nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best,
>>>> most reliable network.
>>>
>>> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring what
>>> they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A duplicate call
>>> placed within 2 minutes.
>> True...
>>
>>> I often place calls to relatives that also have AT&T and manys the
>>> time within 2 minutes I think of something else I forgot to say and
>>> call them back. But those calls would have been counted as dropped
>>> calls.
>>
>> Yes- but in all likelihood, those "benign" callbacks would happen equally
>> across all carriers. Therefore, the "extra" callbacks users of some
>> carriers experienced either indicate another reason for callbacks, such as
>> dropped calls. Either that or Verizon's and T-Mo's customers are far more
>> forgetful than Sprint's as a whole, and think of more things to say after
>> hanging up...
>>
>
>
> You are just guessing here. We have no way to know.
>
Actually we do but we can't see the data that is logged for internal
use. The system knows the difference between a drop and an actual
termination. | | | | |
06-23-2008, 10:00 AM
|
#23 | | Guest |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:21:27 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>Ron wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:12:13 -0600, Todd Allcock
>> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 22 Jun 2008 18:19:25 -0500 Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>> BOGUS STATISTICS !!!!
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cellular-news.com/story/22188.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Which Carrier Is Winning the War On Fewest Dropped Calls?
>>>>>
>>>>> With all major wireless carriers claiming to offer the fewest dropped
>>>>> calls, wireless management services provider mindWireless used its
>>>>> database of call data to research the facts of the claims. Using a
>>>>> sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between January
>>>>> 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
>>>>> Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
>>>>> calls, nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best,
>>>>> most reliable network.
>>>>
>>>> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring what
>>>> they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A duplicate call
>>>> placed within 2 minutes.
>>> True...
>>>
>>>> I often place calls to relatives that also have AT&T and manys the
>>>> time within 2 minutes I think of something else I forgot to say and
>>>> call them back. But those calls would have been counted as dropped
>>>> calls.
>>>
>>> Yes- but in all likelihood, those "benign" callbacks would happen equally
>>> across all carriers. Therefore, the "extra" callbacks users of some
>>> carriers experienced either indicate another reason for callbacks, such as
>>> dropped calls. Either that or Verizon's and T-Mo's customers are far more
>>> forgetful than Sprint's as a whole, and think of more things to say after
>>> hanging up...
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are just guessing here. We have no way to know.
>>
>Actually we do but we can't see the data that is logged for internal
>use. The system knows the difference between a drop and an actual
>termination.
We all know Sprint is stuck with the inferior PCS band of 1900 MHz
which results in greater attention and less of a reach from their
towers and far poorer building penetration.
We also know Sprint can no longer hand you off to Verizon Analog. | | | | |
06-23-2008, 10:54 AM
|
#24 | | Guest |
RBM wrote:
> "Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:485eadf1$0$11595$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> The Bob wrote:
>>> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> amazed us all with the following in
>>> news:6a43bdf5-57c9-4d55-82c0-ca8c11c88c56@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Can you feel the pain of using the 2008 Sprint Instinct Apple
>>>> wannabee?
>>>>
>>>> No WiFi or WiMax, what was Sprint thinking? Do they really have a
>>>> signal everywhere?
>>>
>>> More places than AT&T.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clearly cellphone-quality photos!
>>>
>>> Equivalent to the iPhone.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No internal storage: 2-GB microSD card included (upgradeable to 8
>>>> GB only not 16 GB or greater).
>>>
>>> Internal storage is for children.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't edit attachments.
>>>
>>> Anybody needing to edit attachments on a phone is a wnnabe.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Web browser needs a serious reworking, not even close to the
>>>> beautiful easy to use iPhone Browser
>>>
>>> It's a phone, not a computer.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Includes a stylus ... but provides no slot to stow it, don't you
>>>> just love it?
>>>>
>>>> And the best of all - you have to use SPRINT which may be the USA's
>>>> worse cellular provider according to public opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In terms of customer service, yes. In terms of network, AT&T falls
>>> far short in terms of 3g coverage.
>>>
>> If 4phun's information is correct, I think he has made some very
>> valid points. I don't agree with your responses to them. If it were,
>> as you put it, simply "a phone, not a computer" then it wouldn't
>> need to have any of the functions it has; it would just need to make
>> calls. The bottom line is that, you may call it what you want, but
>> if it's going to do stuff, it should do it well, not half-assed. Common,
>> stylus but no place to stow it? Who thought of that??? And
>> why compare the price of one to the other with different storage
>> memories? That's an apple/oranges way of looking at things, which is
>> what I think they're counting on. We'll see how much of an "iPhone
>> killer" this thing turns out to be.
>> About the same as the LG Voyager, I suspect.
>
> Maybe a person's choice of a phone is like comparing apples to
> oranges. We all have our preferences. Why does one have to be a
> killer of the other? Can't they all live harmoniously together in a
> sort of phone fruit salad?
Excellent response. You got my attention! :-) | | | | |
06-23-2008, 11:00 AM
|
#25 | | Guest |
The Bob wrote:
> "Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> amazed us all with the following
> in news:485eadf1$0$11595$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>
>> The Bob wrote:
>>> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> amazed us all with the following in
>>> news:6a43bdf5-57c9-4d55-82c0-ca8c11c88c56@
>>> 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Can you feel the pain of using the 2008 Sprint Instinct Apple
>>>> wannabee?
>>>>
>>>> No WiFi or WiMax, what was Sprint thinking? Do they really have a
>>>> signal everywhere?
>>>
>>> More places than AT&T.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clearly cellphone-quality photos!
>>>
>>> Equivalent to the iPhone.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No internal storage: 2-GB microSD card included (upgradeable to 8
>>>> GB only not 16 GB or greater).
>>>
>>> Internal storage is for children.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't edit attachments.
>>>
>>> Anybody needing to edit attachments on a phone is a wnnabe.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Web browser needs a serious reworking, not even close to the
>>>> beautiful easy to use iPhone Browser
>>>
>>> It's a phone, not a computer.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Includes a stylus ... but provides no slot to stow it, don't you
>>>> just love it?
>>>>
>>>> And the best of all - you have to use SPRINT which may be the USA's
>>>> worse cellular provider according to public opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In terms of customer service, yes. In terms of network, AT&T falls
>>> far short in terms of 3g coverage.
>>>
>> If 4phun's information is correct, I think he has made some very
>> valid points.
>
> Which ones?
>
>> I don't agree with your responses to them. If it were, as you
>> put it, simply "a phone, not a computer" then it wouldn't need to
>> have any of the functions it has; it would just need to make calls.
>> The bottom line is that, you may call it what you want, but if it's
>> going to do stuff, it should do it well, not half-assed. Common,
>> stylus but no place to stow it? Who thought of that??? And why
>> compare the price of one to the other with different storage
>> memories? That's an apple/oranges way of looking at things, which is
>> what I think they're counting on.
>>
>> We'll see how much of an "iPhone killer" this thing turns out to be.
>> About the same as the LG Voyager, I suspect.
>>
>>
>
>
> What about the long list of things he readily ignores in making the
> comparison? True voice dialing, turn-by-turn GPS navigation, Video
> recording capability, expanded media file compatability, voice command
> functionality, etc.
>
> Those are real functional differences. His need to focus on things
> like a place to put a stylus shows the desperation of his position.
>
Well, so, ok. You have some good points too. :-)
The only thing that irks me about either of these "phones" is that they
built them without true MS Outlook compatibility. Guys like me, who have,
for better or for worse, made themselves dependent upon MS Outlook at both
home and business, need that. Please spare me the MS Exchange and MobileMe
alternative suggestions. Either one is a lacking compromise at best. My
Blackberry Curve syncs flawlessly with Outlook and that sort of locks me
into it. I would get an iPhone if it did the same. | | | | |
06-23-2008, 12:06 PM
|
#26 | | Guest |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:00:10 -0400, "Carl"
<crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>The only thing that irks me about either of these "phones" is that they
>built them without true MS Outlook compatibility. Guys like me, who have,
>for better or for worse, made themselves dependent upon MS Outlook at both
>home and business, need that. Please spare me the MS Exchange and MobileMe
>alternative suggestions. Either one is a lacking compromise at best. My
>Blackberry Curve syncs flawlessly with Outlook and that sort of locks me
>into it. I would get an iPhone if it did the same.
>
Try att.com/iphone
or
apple.com/iphone
Do you not know about the iPhone 3G? All of Apple's competitors are
trying to match the iPhone, and Apple has now greatly surpassed the
iPhone, with the iPhone 3G.
"It supports Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync, delivering push email,
calendar, and contacts" http://www.apple.com/iphone/enterprise/ | | | | |
06-23-2008, 06:22 PM
|
#27 | | Guest |
Ron wrote:
> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring what
> they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A duplicate call
> placed within 2 minutes.
>
> I often place calls to relatives that also have AT&T and manys the
> time within 2 minutes I think of something else I forgot to say and
> call them back. But those calls would have been counted as dropped
> calls.
For that to be a valid argument, one would have to assume that users
on the other carriers don't make such second calls.
| | | | |
06-23-2008, 07:44 PM
|
#28 | | Guest |
Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:5iev549uu4d8kpsqlsjj7qt510o9i9j71d@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:21:27 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:12:13 -0600, Todd Allcock
>>> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 22 Jun 2008 18:19:25 -0500 Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BOGUS STATISTICS !!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cellular-news.com/story/22188.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which Carrier Is Winning the War On Fewest Dropped Calls?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With all major wireless carriers claiming to offer the fewest
>>>>>> dropped calls, wireless management services provider mindWireless
>>>>>> used its database of call data to research the facts of the
>>>>>> claims. Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and
>>>>>> received between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless
>>>>>> found Sprint, followed by Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have
>>>>>> the fewest number of dropped calls, nearly 50 percent behind
>>>>>> Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most reliable network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring
>>>>> what they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A
>>>>> duplicate call placed within 2 minutes.
>>>> True...
>>>>
>>>>> I often place calls to relatives that also have AT&T and manys the
>>>>> time within 2 minutes I think of something else I forgot to say
>>>>> and call them back. But those calls would have been counted as
>>>>> dropped calls.
>>>>
>>>> Yes- but in all likelihood, those "benign" callbacks would happen
>>>> equally across all carriers. Therefore, the "extra" callbacks
>>>> users of some carriers experienced either indicate another reason
>>>> for callbacks, such as dropped calls. Either that or Verizon's and
>>>> T-Mo's customers are far more forgetful than Sprint's as a whole,
>>>> and think of more things to say after hanging up...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are just guessing here. We have no way to know.
>>>
>>Actually we do but we can't see the data that is logged for internal
>>use. The system knows the difference between a drop and an actual
>>termination.
>
>
> We all know Sprint is stuck with the inferior PCS band of 1900 MHz
> which results in greater attention and less of a reach from their
> towers and far poorer building penetration.
No- we all know the data as it has been presented. Sprint was found to
have the fewest potential dropped calls. Any deviation from the true
numbers would be equally shared by all carriers.
Now go take your medicine- your paranoia is starting to show again. | | | | |
06-24-2008, 11:25 AM
|
#29 | | Guest |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:22:45 -0500, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx>
wrote:
>Ron wrote:
>> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring what
>> they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A duplicate call
>> placed within 2 minutes.
>>
>> I often place calls to relatives that also have AT&T and manys the
>> time within 2 minutes I think of something else I forgot to say and
>> call them back. But those calls would have been counted as dropped
>> calls.
>
>For that to be a valid argument, one would have to assume that users
>on the other carriers don't make such second calls.
Depends on whther the carrier has mobile to mobile, and with the
largest number of subscribers, there's more mobile to mobile on AT&T.
| | | | |
06-24-2008, 05:59 PM
|
#30 | | Guest |
Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:fu7264hash6au3qdbru8hoo8al27ktkq4q@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:22:45 -0500, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx>
> wrote:
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>> Except they werent measuring dropped calls. They were measuring what
>>> they assumed to be an approximation of dropped calls. A duplicate call
>>> placed within 2 minutes.
>>>
>>> I often place calls to relatives that also have AT&T and manys the
>>> time within 2 minutes I think of something else I forgot to say and
>>> call them back. But those calls would have been counted as dropped
>>> calls.
>>
>>For that to be a valid argument, one would have to assume that users
>>on the other carriers don't make such second calls.
>
>
> Depends on whther the carrier has mobile to mobile, and with the
> largest number of subscribers, there's more mobile to mobile on AT&T.
>
The big four all have mobile to mobile. More subscribers would mean more
calls generated, and therefore the percentage obtained by measuring in this
manner would remain consistent from carrier to carrier if mobile to mobile
calls were considered.
Got some other half-baked logic to try next?
| | | | |
Cell Phone Links
| Advertisement
| | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | |
|
