Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

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

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:27:16 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Cingular ranks low, and identical to JD Power rankings earlier this
>>year, SprintPCS ranks lower.
>>
>>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...lphones05.html
>
> As a group, the carriers still leave much to be desired, Consumer
> Reports editorialized.
>
> They scored only 66 on a scale of 100 for overall satisfaction. ...
>
> In other words, differences were relatively small and not terribly
> meaningful.
>

The statement that "They scored only 66 on a scale of 100 for overall
satisfaction" does not equate to "differences were relatively small and
not terribly meaningful.", as you stated so boldly above. In fact, making
that statement portrays you as rather unintelligent and incapable of
gaining any meaning from written words.

Wanna try to translate it again?

---

› See More: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

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

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:00:50 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>

>
>>It's pretty amusing that Consumer Reports joined the chorus in
>>criticizing Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" ads, since it's
>>demonstrably untrue, only Sprint had any cities with more dropped call
>>than Cingular, with Verizon and T-Mobile having the fewest dropped
>>calls.
>
> The Cingular claim hasn't been challenged successfully.
>

It would appear that the Consumer Reports report did just that, Novice.

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

> The big, really big, question is whether or not Sprint can pull all this
> off. The technical, financial, and business risks are truly huge. Thus
> far this is mostly vaporware, with Sprint mostly selling the Same Old
> Stuff (including iDEN). Only time will tell. But I wouldn't want to be
> a shareholder.
>

There you have it, folks- financial analysis by the Cingular kool aid
supplier himself.

I particularly like the "mostly vaporware" portion of the post. Would that
include the new EVDO rev A data network they are currently rolling out and
iDen PTT, which both kick the crap out of Cingular in terms of users and
performance? Or maybe it refers to the successful integration of iDen and
CDMA platforms in a single device, already rolled out in 24 markets?

The only vapor involved in this thread is that which occupies the space
between your ears.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:46:13 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe so, but Sprint is still hemorrhaging customers with their high
>> churn and fewer additions. Poor handset selection is one reason for
>> their troubles.
>
>
> That and ALWAYS worst rated Customer Service. JD Power, Yankee Group
> and Consumer Reports all agree.
>
> Being stuck with the inferior 1900 MHZ doesnt help SprintPCS either.

They knew going in to the wireless business that they were at a
disadvantage. They had a lot of good years at 1900 MHz.

Scott wrote:
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:00:50 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>
>>> It's pretty amusing that Consumer Reports joined the chorus in
>>> criticizing Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" ads, since it's
>>> demonstrably untrue, only Sprint had any cities with more dropped call
>>> than Cingular, with Verizon and T-Mobile having the fewest dropped
>>> calls.
>> The Cingular claim hasn't been challenged successfully.
>>
>
> It would appear that the Consumer Reports report did just that, Novice.

Well Consumer Reports does state that their results are for the metro
area. It could be that Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" is based on
data from other areas that Cingular asked the company conducting the
test to go to. With coverage maps of the major carriers available, as
well as knowledge of the locations of both their own and competitor's
towers. Cingular could put together a list of places for the Telephia to
do their testing that would give the desired result. Certainly
Cingular's fewest dropped calls claim is not true in the 20 metro areas
that Consumer Reports surveyed. Cingular refuses to disclose the test
methodology or raw data, so all the experts believe that they are either
lying about the whole thing, or they designed the test to look at
micro-sized areas where they have a coverage advantage.

At 05 Dec 2006 17:00:50 -0800 SMS wrote:

> While it's not surprising that Verizon ranked first in 14 out of 20
> areas, and second in the rest, I'm surprised that T-Mobile beat them in
> three cities. No doubt T-Mobile's policy of discouraging new sign-ups
> for
> people with no coverage at their home and work locations plays a part in
> their good ratings.


I think you're being a little unfair- T-Mo isn't the new kid on the
block anymore- they've matured and have built out an excellent network in
a number of cities. Like Sprint, they've focused on covering population
rather than geography, and have used roaming agreements to fill in the
gaps.

Here in southwest Denver, T-Mo (and Sprint) hit places Cingular (and
sometimes Verizon) don't.

T-Mo's been around for a good number of years now and have invested a lot
in their network. It's a little disingenuous to say that their rating
was based on discouraging customers that have no coverage at home or work!





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:31:30 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
wrote:
: The big, really big, question is whether or not Sprint can pull all this
: off. The technical, financial, and business risks are truly huge. Thus
: far this is mostly vaporware, with Sprint mostly selling the Same Old
: Stuff (including iDEN). Only time will tell. But I wouldn't want to be
: a shareholder.
:
: On 5 Dec 2006 17:23:27 -0800, "[email protected]"
: <[email protected]> wrote in
: <[email protected]>:
:
: >Sprint dedicated $7 billion to network enhancements in 2006.
: >Sprint is investing more than $2 billion into the Nextel National
: >Network and adding more than 1,600 new cell sites to expand
: >coverage and increase capacity across the country.
: >Sprint leads the industry in mobile broadband coverage and
: >rollout of EVDO and EVDO Rev A. By the fourth quarter of 2007,
: >Sprints entire mobile broadband network will be upgraded to
: >EV-DO Revision A. Once the network is upgraded, Sprint will
: >also expect to begin offering in early 2008 high performance
: >walkie-talkie services over the EV-DO Revision A network.
: >Don't forget 4G, Sprint's planned buildout of the 4G WiMAX
: >network will be the standard for future mobility products and services.
: >
: >The hallmark of Sprint Nextel is innovation.
: >Sprint's ranked #1 in the telecommunications industry in the
: >area of innovation in the FORTUNEs 2006 Most Admired Companies list.
: >Sprint Nextels impressive portfolio of assets includes a
: >high-speed data network, Sprint Power Vision, which empowers
: >customers to do what they want, when they want it, where
: >they want it. Sprint was the first carrier to offer live TV and
: >today we offer more than more than 50 video channels that
: >feature live and on-demand programming.
: >
: >Popular price plans are available to Sprint customers to help
: >prevent them from paying high overage charges
: >and paying for minutes they do not use. Nights start at 7 p.m., This
: >gives customers two more hours of free calling. Sprint also offers
: >plans with Free Incoming Calls - in which calls from any of the
: >networks are free. Another item other co's don't offer.
: >We Have Saved The Best for Last = Upgrade Fees Eliminated:
: >Sprint recently eliminated device upgrade fees for existing customers
: >when they purchase a new device either through telesales or
: >online at www.sprint.com
: >
: >---All Fact!!!

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:04:31 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:
: At 05 Dec 2006 17:00:50 -0800 SMS wrote:
:
: > While it's not surprising that Verizon ranked first in 14 out of 20
: > areas, and second in the rest, I'm surprised that T-Mobile beat them in
: > three cities. No doubt T-Mobile's policy of discouraging new sign-ups
: > for people with no coverage at their home and work locations plays a
: > part in their good ratings.
:
:
: I think you're being a little unfair- T-Mo isn't the new kid on the
: block anymore- they've matured and have built out an excellent network in
: a number of cities. Like Sprint, they've focused on covering population
: rather than geography, and have used roaming agreements to fill in the
: gaps.
:
: Here in southwest Denver, T-Mo (and Sprint) hit places Cingular (and
: sometimes Verizon) don't.
:
: T-Mo's been around for a good number of years now and have invested a lot
: in their network. It's a little disingenuous to say that their rating
: was based on discouraging customers that have no coverage at home or work!

I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
carriers should emulate.

Bob

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:27:15 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:00:50 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>> It's pretty amusing that Consumer Reports joined the chorus in
>>>> criticizing Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" ads, since it's
>>>> demonstrably untrue, only Sprint had any cities with more dropped call
>>>> than Cingular, with Verizon and T-Mobile having the fewest dropped
>>>> calls.
>>> The Cingular claim hasn't been challenged successfully.
>>
>> It would appear that the Consumer Reports report did just that, Novice.
>
>Well Consumer Reports does state that their results are for the metro
>area. It could be that Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" is based on
>data from other areas that Cingular asked the company conducting the
>test to go to. With coverage maps of the major carriers available, as
>well as knowledge of the locations of both their own and competitor's
>towers. Cingular could put together a list of places for the Telephia to
>do their testing that would give the desired result. Certainly
>Cingular's fewest dropped calls claim is not true in the 20 metro areas
>that Consumer Reports surveyed. Cingular refuses to disclose the test
>methodology or raw data, so all the experts believe that they are either
>lying about the whole thing, or they designed the test to look at
>micro-sized areas where they have a coverage advantage.

And then we have Verizon's best network claims based solely on its own
secret internal testing, which of course lack any credibility
whatsoever. So why not criticize Verizon?

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

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:18:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:46:13 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Maybe so, but Sprint is still hemorrhaging customers with their high
>>churn and fewer additions. Poor handset selection is one reason for
>>their troubles.
>
>That and ALWAYS worst rated Customer Service. JD Power, Yankee Group
>and Consumer Reports all agree.
>
>Being stuck with the inferior 1900 MHZ doesnt help SprintPCS either.

There's nothing inferior about 1900 MHz. By that logic, Wi-Fi and WiMAX
are disasters.

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

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:03:41 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:46:13 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe so, but Sprint is still hemorrhaging customers with their high
>>> churn and fewer additions. Poor handset selection is one reason for
>>> their troubles.
>>
>> That and ALWAYS worst rated Customer Service. JD Power, Yankee Group
>> and Consumer Reports all agree.
>>
>> Being stuck with the inferior 1900 MHZ doesnt help SprintPCS either.
>
>They knew going in to the wireless business that they were at a
>disadvantage. They had a lot of good years at 1900 MHz.

The disadvantage is self-inflicted: first the choice of CDMA2000, then
the decision to merge with Nextel, and now the very risky migration to
unproven WiMAX technology.

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> And then we have Verizon's best network claims based solely on its own
> secret internal testing, which of course lack any credibility
> whatsoever. So why not criticize Verizon?
>

Well ... I live in Minneapolis and I asked a lot of people about their
experience with various providers before deciding to ditch Sprint PCS
(including carry around a cell phone with a T-Mobile and a Cingular prepaid
card in it). I came to the same conclusion as the article for Minneapolis.
In fact, I would have to rate Cingular last, not based upon my own experience,
but based upon all the people that I know that use Cingular. Bar none, each
and every one of them claimed they had poor reception; usually based upon
dropped calls or not receiving call [just going to voicemail]. In fact, my
Daughter's friend was over and she was leaving her phone by the window. I
asked why and she said she just doesn't get calls unless it has three bars.
Odd ... it got three bars around the entire house. She said it is missing her
calls and so she thought that was why.

Sprint coverage is alright, but has significant holes where I have been
working over the last 18 months. Their CS simpy stinks. I rarely heard
anything bad about T-Mobile ... it just worked [except not well in the same
places that Sprint didn't do well].

So:

1. Verizon
2. T-Mobile
3. Sprint PCS
4. Cingular

.... for the Minneapolis area.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> And then we have Verizon's best network claims based solely on its own
>> secret internal testing, which of course lack any credibility
>> whatsoever. So why not criticize Verizon?
>>
>
> Well ... I live in Minneapolis and I asked a lot of people about their
> experience with various providers before deciding to ditch Sprint PCS
> (including carry around a cell phone with a T-Mobile and a Cingular prepaid
> card in it). I came to the same conclusion as the article for Minneapolis.
> In fact, I would have to rate Cingular last, not based upon my own experience,
> but based upon all the people that I know that use Cingular. Bar none, each
> and every one of them claimed they had poor reception; usually based upon
> dropped calls or not receiving call [just going to voicemail]. In fact, my
> Daughter's friend was over and she was leaving her phone by the window. I
> asked why and she said she just doesn't get calls unless it has three bars.
> Odd ... it got three bars around the entire house. She said it is missing her
> calls and so she thought that was why.

The difference between the claims of Cingular and Verizon is that
Verizon has had their claims corroborated by independent studies and
surveys numerous times. Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, and other
organizations that are not being paid by the carriers have come to the
same conclusion.

If Verizon were out there making their coverage claims and every
independent organization disputed them, as is the case with Cingular,
then Verizon's claims would be seen simply as advertising hype, as
Cingular's claims are viewed by most organizations. Shills like Navas,
that constantly make unsupported claims that are contradicted by every
reputable organization, do no favor to the companies that they are
shilling for.

Bravo to Consumer Reports for calling Cingular on their unsupported
claim of "fewest dropped calls."

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:41:16 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>The difference between the claims of Cingular and Verizon is that
>Verizon has had their claims corroborated by independent studies and
>surveys numerous times.

Verizon actually relies entirely on its own internal testing without any
outside verification whatsoever, and is thus not to be taken seriously.
Cingular at least uses an outside firm, but of course no marketing
claims by any carrier should be taken at face value.

>Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, and other
>organizations that are not being paid by the carriers have come to the
>same conclusion.

Actually not relevant.

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

Robert Coe wrote:

> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
> carriers should emulate.

Yes, that's what I intended. However I should also point out that out in
the western region, T-Mobile is different than the old Voicestream that
people back east are used to. Originally, T-Mobile did a swap with
Cingular, where Cingular let T-Mobile use their 1900 MHz western
network, and T-Mobile let Cingular use their 1900 MHz NY network. The
1900 MHz GSM network out west was particularly bad (I had it for a
year), and it still isn't the greatest. When Cingular took over AT&T
Wireless, T-Mobile got the Cingular 1900 MHz network. Because Cingular,
formerly Pacific Bell Wireless was so late to the party, they had too
problems, first they couldn't put towers in all the prime locations that
AT&T and Verizon had towers, and second they were stuck at the less
desirable 1900 MHz, which is big disadvantage in terms of coverage.
Voicestream had a much longer history, and had good coverage in much of
the country.

I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.

It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
Cingular, and far below Verizon.