Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon,2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4-Cingular

See:

"http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/personal_technology/13330867.htm"

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:31:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
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.

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

In <4394dbbe$0$38644$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:31:28
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@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>

<----- Which Way -----> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:31:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> 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.

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.

>>> "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.
>
> 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

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.

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.

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:12:08 -0500, "Mike T." <hello@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.

>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

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4395cb50$0$38592$742ec2ed@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 **** 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

>>Expensive, compared to just about anybody else (especially Cingular or
>>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

"Mike T." <hello@howyadoin.now> wrote in message
news:4395dc1e$0$84001$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
>>>Expensive, compared to just about anybody else (especially Cingular or
>>>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
>

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

Somewhere around Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:31:28 -0800, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from SMS
<scharf.steven@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

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.

Mike T. wrote:

> 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.

Marty wrote:

> 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%.

Verizon's customer support is also far superior. I used to have Verizon. :-(

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:439624a1$0$38583$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> 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.