Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 95
  1. #1
    SMS
    Guest
    "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"



    See More: JD Power Report on Call Quality




  2. #2
    John R. Copeland
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"


    For all six regions of the country, the total spreads of call qualities
    were only from +/- 2% to +/- 5%.
    That tells me that call quality from all carriers is nearly equal.




  3. #3
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

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

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:57:53
    GMT, "John R. Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"

    >
    >For all six regions of the country, the total spreads of call qualities
    >were only from +/- 2% to +/- 5%.
    >That tells me that call quality from all carriers is nearly equal.


    Yep. Likewise in most other categories. What really matters is coverage in
    the particular areas you care about most, which can vary considerably by
    carrier.

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



  4. #4
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    SMS wrote:
    > "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"


    Looks like an average of only 8% difference between all the carriers.
    Given all the overall information, the report really isn't that significant.



  5. #5
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
    > SMS wrote:
    >> "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"

    >
    > Looks like an average of only 8% difference between all the carriers.
    > Given all the overall information, the report really isn't that
    > significant.


    I should have said an 8% spread.



  6. #6
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    John R. Copeland wrote:
    > "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"

    >
    > For all six regions of the country, the total spreads of call qualities
    > were only from +/- 2% to +/- 5%.
    > That tells me that call quality from all carriers is nearly equal.


    The scores are not percentages. A score less than 100 is bad.

    But yes, the differences in most regions are relatively small. Only in
    the Western region, where Cingular has historically had problems with
    call quality, was the difference pretty big, with a ten point spread
    from best to worst.

    What surprised me is how well T-Mobile did in the western region.
    T-Mobile doesn't have good coverage in the west, but I guess the quality
    of calls is more related to when a call actually goes through.



  7. #7
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

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

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:52:34
    -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"


    The original press release is at
    <http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=1108>

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



  8. #8
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

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

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:50:41
    -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >John R. Copeland wrote:
    >> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>> "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"

    >>
    >> For all six regions of the country, the total spreads of call qualities
    >> were only from +/- 2% to +/- 5%.
    >> That tells me that call quality from all carriers is nearly equal.

    >
    >The scores are not percentages. A score less than 100 is bad.


    Not "bad" -- just lower than higher numbers. All these numbers are "good" as
    the text of the release makes clear:

    "It’s clear that wireless providers have made great strides in improving
    the quality of calls, especially in those areas that impact customer churn
    the most, such as calls that are dropped or disconnected," said Kirk
    Parsons, senior director of wireless services at J.D. Power and Associates.

    >But yes, the differences in most regions are relatively small. Only in
    >the Western region, where Cingular has historically had problems with
    >call quality, was the difference pretty big, with a ten point spread
    >from best to worst.
    >
    >What surprised me is how well T-Mobile did in the western region.
    >T-Mobile doesn't have good coverage in the west, but I guess the quality
    >of calls is more related to when a call actually goes through.


    That doesn't make sense. In much of the West (as measured by subscribers),
    T-Mobile has just the old Cingular ("orange") network, whereas Cingular GSM
    has both the old ATTWS ("blue") network and use of the T-Mobile network. Thus
    with much more GSM coverage Cingular will almost certainly have better GSM
    call quality than T-Mobile. The difference is that T-Mobile is only GSM,
    whereas Cingular also has D-AMPS ("TDMA") customers (from the ATTWS merger),
    so the overall Cingular numbers are probably being dragged down by D-AMPS (in
    part due to network migration to GSM). This is a fundamental problem with any
    survey that lumps all technologies together, as I've pointed out before.

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



  9. #9
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    John R. Copeland wrote:
    > "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"

    >
    > For all six regions of the country, the total spreads of call qualities
    > were only from +/- 2% to +/- 5%.
    > That tells me that call quality from all carriers is nearly equal.



    I would guess that means that no matter how you slice it, Cingular's big
    ballyhoo about being the network "with the lowest dropped calls" doesn't
    amount to much, except maybe a lot of bunk.


    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.



  10. #10
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    John Navas wrote:
    > The difference is that T-Mobile is only GSM,
    > whereas Cingular also has D-AMPS ("TDMA") customers (from the ATTWS merger),
    > so the overall Cingular numbers are probably being dragged down by D-AMPS (in
    > part due to network migration to GSM). This is a fundamental problem with any
    > survey that lumps all technologies together, as I've pointed out before.



    I don't see how that would be a problem in this case. The study
    measured call quality and call problem percentages, not coverage or
    which technology is best. Presumably, the tests were done where
    coverage was reasonably good for the technology tested, or else a much
    more noticeable spread beyond what was observed would be indicated.

    All things being equal, the network signalling format should not be a
    factor in call quality, unless a carrier is neglecting to maintain a
    network. And if a carrier IS being neglectful, then the results are
    quite fair in reflecting that.




    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.



  11. #11
    Agent_C
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:52:34 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >"http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"


    Looks like T-Mobile is playing an aggressive game of catch up. Hard to
    believe they're neck-n-neck with Verizon in many regions. That's
    certainly not reflective of my experience.

    A_C




  12. #12

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    Agent_C wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:52:34 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >"http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"

    >
    > Looks like T-Mobile is playing an aggressive game of catch up. Hard to
    > believe they're neck-n-neck with Verizon in many regions. That's
    > certainly not reflective of my experience.
    >
    > A_C


    Note that the study does not measure NO SERVICE areas.





  13. #13
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

    [email protected]lid wrote:
    > Agent_C wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:52:34 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"

    >> Looks like T-Mobile is playing an aggressive game of catch up. Hard to
    >> believe they're neck-n-neck with Verizon in many regions. That's
    >> certainly not reflective of my experience.
    >>
    >> A_C

    >
    > Note that the study does not measure NO SERVICE areas.


    Not directly. But it does look at initial connections (could be either a
    coverage or a capacity issue), and it looks at dropped calls, which
    would be affected by someone moving into a NO SERVICE area, or an area
    that is at capacity. I live in an area that T-Mobile's own web site
    shows no coverage about a block away from me, and while there are a lot
    of those areas, many users will not be making a call while passing
    through them.

    There may be some self-selection going on here too. Someone that goes
    with T-Mobile often does so for price alone, or because they know that
    they're not going to need the coverage and in-building penetration
    offered by an 800 Mhz carrier.

    The ratings also take into account capacity issues because dropped calls
    are often caused by someone moving into an area where the cell has no
    more capacity. This was a huge problem with Pacific Bell Cellular, which
    became Cingular, when I first had service with them--they oversold their
    network with very attractive prices, and people that didn't know any
    better at the time, switched to them in droves. So it could be a
    capacity, rather than a coverage issue that explains why Cingular did so
    poorly in comparison to T-Mobile.



  14. #14
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

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

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:36:15 -0500,
    Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> The difference is that T-Mobile is only GSM,
    >> whereas Cingular also has D-AMPS ("TDMA") customers (from the ATTWS merger),
    >> so the overall Cingular numbers are probably being dragged down by D-AMPS (in
    >> part due to network migration to GSM). This is a fundamental problem with any
    >> survey that lumps all technologies together, as I've pointed out before.

    >
    >I don't see how that would be a problem in this case. The study
    >measured call quality and call problem percentages, not coverage or
    >which technology is best. Presumably, the tests were done where
    >coverage was reasonably good for the technology tested, or else a much
    >more noticeable spread beyond what was observed would be indicated.


    I don't think so -- note how many problems were reported per 100 calls.

    >All things being equal, the network signalling format should not be a
    >factor in call quality, unless a carrier is neglecting to maintain a
    >network. And if a carrier IS being neglectful, then the results are
    >quite fair in reflecting that.


    Again, I don't think so -- the D-AMPS ("TDMA") network is being migrated to
    GSM and phased out, which has resulted in degraded service for some D-AMPS
    customers.

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



  15. #15
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: JD Power Report on Call Quality

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

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:32:23 -0500,
    Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

    >John R. Copeland wrote:
    >> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>> "http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/lath057.html?.v=49"

    >>
    >> For all six regions of the country, the total spreads of call qualities
    >> were only from +/- 2% to +/- 5%.
    >> That tells me that call quality from all carriers is nearly equal.

    >
    >I would guess that means that no matter how you slice it, Cingular's big
    >ballyhoo about being the network "with the lowest dropped calls" doesn't
    >amount to much, except maybe a lot of bunk.


    Again, I don't think any such conclusion can be validly drawn, because of
    lumping different technologies together (D-AMPS, 1900-only GSM, standard
    dual-band GSM, and GSM with ENS). I know from my own experience that ENS and
    free dual-network roaming with GSM (on which I'm guessing the Cingular claim
    is based) is quite a bit superior to the other things being lumped in with it.

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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast