review sites

Hello again,

Are there any good reviews site out there comparing the quality of service
for various carriers? Would like to research coverage in general, cust.
care and phones.

Thanks

---

› See More: review sites

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <Kl9rd.124804$5K2.33675@attbi_s03> on Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:44:10 GMT, "Bob
K." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Are there any good reviews site out there comparing the quality of service
>for various carriers? Would like to research coverage in general, cust.
>care and phones.

JD Powers

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Not very good results for Cingular. They are either at the bottom or tied
at the bottom with AT&T in most categories.



"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Kl9rd.124804$5K2.33675@attbi_s03> on Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:44:10 GMT,
"Bob
> K." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Are there any good reviews site out there comparing the quality of
service
> >for various carriers? Would like to research coverage in general, cust.
> >care and phones.
>
> JD Powers
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <Kl9rd.124804$5K2.33675@attbi_s03>,
"Bob K." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> Are there any good reviews site out there comparing the quality of service
> for various carriers? Would like to research coverage in general, cust.
> care and phones.
>
> Thanks

J.D.Power
The Yankee Group
Consumer Reports

all do Annual Reports.

But those reports dont tell you what coverage will be like where you
live, and they have no way of knowing your calling patterns.

Day/night/long distance/weekend local/travel
indoor/outdoor city/country/rural

So a service that rates best, may not be best for you.

True, but customers care more about phones and price than about the things
rated by JD Powers, which is why Cingular has done well.

In <%gard.172595$HA.96681@attbi_s01> on Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:47:23 GMT, "Bob
K." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Not very good results for Cingular. They are either at the bottom or tied
>at the bottom with AT&T in most categories.
>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <Kl9rd.124804$5K2.33675@attbi_s03> on Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:44:10 GMT,
>"Bob
>> K." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Are there any good reviews site out there comparing the quality of
>service
>> >for various carriers? Would like to research coverage in general, cust.
>> >care and phones.
>>
>> JD Powers

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 01 Dec
2004 03:50:06 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <Kl9rd.124804$5K2.33675@attbi_s03>,
> "Bob K." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello again,
>>
>> Are there any good reviews site out there comparing the quality of service
>> for various carriers? Would like to research coverage in general, cust.
>> care and phones.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>J.D.Power

Good.

>The Yankee Group

Guesswork.

>Consumer Reports

Uneven.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:


>>
>>J.D.Power
>
>
> Good.
>

J.D. Power accepts money from the same companies they review, and there
is absolutely nothing legit about that And there's nothing that would
ever convince me that reading that marketing rag serves anyone's
benefit, let alone mine. I wouldn't waste my piss on it.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:52:28 -0600, Jer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>J.D.Power
>>
>> Good.
>
>J.D. Power accepts money from the same companies they review, and there
>is absolutely nothing legit about that And there's nothing that would
>ever convince me that reading that marketing rag serves anyone's
>benefit, let alone mine. I wouldn't waste my piss on it.

Nonsense.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Jer wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> J.D.Power
>>
>>
>>
>> Good.
>>
>
> J.D. Power accepts money from the same companies they review, and there
> is absolutely nothing legit about that And there's nothing that would
> ever convince me that reading that marketing rag serves anyone's
> benefit, let alone mine. I wouldn't waste my piss on it.
>
>


http://www.jdpower.com/cc/global/faq/index.asp

How can J.D. Power and Associates claim its information is unbiased,
when manufacturers pay for the studies?

J.D. Power and Associates syndicated studies are not funded by the
companies that are measured. They are funded and owned by the firm.
After the firm's study results are published, manufacturers, retailers,
suppliers and other industry participants can choose whether or not to
purchase the reports. Ownership of the data derived from the syndicated
customer satisfaction studies is key to the firm's independence and
unbiased position. This third-party status enables J.D. Power and
Associates to provide its clients with credible and clear feedback from
their actual customer

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

> John Navas wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>J.D.Power
> >
> >
> > Good.
> >
>
> J.D. Power accepts money from the same companies they review, and there
> is absolutely nothing legit about that And there's nothing that would
> ever convince me that reading that marketing rag serves anyone's
> benefit, let alone mine. I wouldn't waste my piss on it.

With that logic, why does John support the BBB which similarly accepts
all of its money from the companies it polices?


But maybe NAVAS doesnt like J.D. Power because they have rated Cingular
poorly for customer service.


And of course J.D. Power surveys strangely come up with similar results
as those of The Yankee Group and those of Consumer Reports.

In article <[email protected]>,
Bob Horvath <[email protected]> wrote:

> How can J.D. Power and Associates claim its information is unbiased,
> when manufacturers pay for the studies?
>
> J.D. Power and Associates syndicated studies are not funded by the
> companies that are measured. They are funded and owned by the firm.
> After the firm's study results are published, manufacturers, retailers,
> suppliers and other industry participants can choose whether or not to
> purchase the reports. Ownership of the data derived from the syndicated
> customer satisfaction studies is key to the firm's independence and
> unbiased position. This third-party status enables J.D. Power and
> Associates to provide its clients with credible and clear feedback from
> their actual customer

Thank you for clarifying that. Those that support companies rated poorly
by J.D. Power look for ways to try and discredit the reports.

But strangely J.D. Power reports often match results by The Yankee
Group, or by Consumer Reports, and Consumer Reports will sue you if you
try to claim their reports are biased.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 01 Dec
2004 10:44:28 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> J.D. Power accepts money from the same companies they review, and there
>> is absolutely nothing legit about that And there's nothing that would
>> ever convince me that reading that marketing rag serves anyone's
>> benefit, let alone mine. I wouldn't waste my piss on it.
>
>With that logic, why does John support the BBB which similarly accepts
>all of its money from the companies it polices?

Because (1) that logic is wrong, as explained by another post to this thread,
and (2) I know from considerable experience (including my own) that the BBB is
effective.

>But maybe NAVAS doesnt like J.D. Power because they have rated Cingular
>poorly for customer service.

Pay attention -- I actually rated JC Powers as "good".

>And of course J.D. Power surveys strangely come up with similar results
>as those of The Yankee Group and those of Consumer Reports.

Sometimes yes; sometimes no.

The saying is that "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" but you seem
determined to prove it wrong.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Jer <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>>J.D. Power accepts money from the same companies they review, and there
>>is absolutely nothing legit about that And there's nothing that would
>>ever convince me that reading that marketing rag serves anyone's
>>benefit, let alone mine. I wouldn't waste my piss on it.
>
>
> With that logic, why does John support the BBB which similarly accepts
> all of its money from the companies it polices?

I can't answer that because I'm not John, but I can tell you that I
don't regard the BBB as a necessarily useful source of critical
information. They only know what they're told, which doesn't provide
the empirical balance I require for my decisions. Mind you, I'm not
saying the BBB is a worthless pustule on society's ass, because their
information is at least sourced primarily from unsolicited contributors,
but the BBB doesn't require a third party information to determine if
issues brought to their doorstep were resolved - they accept the word of
the contributor as sole source fact. I can't, and don't. Having said
that, I'll say I am often interested to know their opinion, but also
realise their opinion is just that, an opinion - albeit a professional
one, but still just *one* opinion. The most damaging difference (for
me) between the BBB and JDPA is one makes no attempt to hide their
funding source, the other one does. You're welcome to do the math on
this, as I have, but I've never been able to come up with an honest
answer where JDPA was concerned because they don't tell you everything
they've got in their shoe. Or up their sleeve. And yes, of course,
this is just *my* opinion. And this is usenet, rife with opinions.

>
> But maybe NAVAS doesnt like J.D. Power because they have rated Cingular
> poorly for customer service.

I may not necessarily agree with John on this, per se, but I don't think
much of Cingular's CS either, and that opinion is sole sourced from my
own experiences.

>
> And of course J.D. Power surveys strangely come up with similar results
> as those of The Yankee Group and those of Consumer Reports.

Well, three wrongs don't make it right, just as three rights don't make
it wrong. Following the money, if one can, is key.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

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

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Jer <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>J.D. Power accepts money from the same companies they review, and there
> >>is absolutely nothing legit about that And there's nothing that would
> >>ever convince me that reading that marketing rag serves anyone's
> >>benefit, let alone mine. I wouldn't waste my piss on it.
> >
> >
> > With that logic, why does John support the BBB which similarly accepts
> > all of its money from the companies it polices?
>
> I can't answer that because I'm not John, but I can tell you that I
> don't regard the BBB as a necessarily useful source of critical
> information. They only know what they're told, which doesn't provide
> the empirical balance I require for my decisions. Mind you, I'm not
> saying the BBB is a worthless pustule on society's ass, because their
> information is at least sourced primarily from unsolicited contributors,
> but the BBB doesn't require a third party information to determine if
> issues brought to their doorstep were resolved - they accept the word of
> the contributor as sole source fact. I can't, and don't. Having said
> that, I'll say I am often interested to know their opinion, but also
> realise their opinion is just that, an opinion - albeit a professional
> one, but still just *one* opinion. The most damaging difference (for
> me) between the BBB and JDPA is one makes no attempt to hide their
> funding source, the other one does. You're welcome to do the math on
> this, as I have, but I've never been able to come up with an honest
> answer where JDPA was concerned because they don't tell you everything
> they've got in their shoe. Or up their sleeve. And yes, of course,
> this is just *my* opinion. And this is usenet, rife with opinions.

J.D. Power is spot on within the limitations of their surveys.

The BBB takes the word of their contributor.


>
> >
> > But maybe NAVAS doesnt like J.D. Power because they have rated Cingular
> > poorly for customer service.
>
> I may not necessarily agree with John on this, per se, but I don't think
> much of Cingular's CS either, and that opinion is sole sourced from my
> own experiences.
>
> >
> > And of course J.D. Power surveys strangely come up with similar results
> > as those of The Yankee Group and those of Consumer Reports.
>
> Well, three wrongs don't make it right, just as three rights don't make
> it wrong. Following the money, if one can, is key.


Tell me any other reason other than they're correct for these three
organizations working totally independantly of each other rate Verizon
and Nextel best and ATTWS, Sprint and Cingular worst?

Jack Zwick wrote:

>
> J.D. Power is spot on within the limitations of their surveys.

I disagree, and not just about cellular service issues, but also in
other areas of personal interest.


>
> The BBB takes the word of their contributor.

Unless the original complainant is nonresponsive, in which case the case
is closed as "resolved" without further action. And they won't tell you
which cases were handled this way, nor summarize the numbers with this
category separately counted. Apparently, the BBB can afford to assume
that no news is good news - I can't.


> Tell me any other reason other than they're correct for these three
> organizations working totally independantly of each other rate Verizon
> and Nextel best and ATTWS, Sprint and Cingular worst?

I just don't believe those ratings are accurate.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'