Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old 800-
> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
> subscribers! ;-)

I was at the library earlier tonight, and saw the collection of old
Consumer Reports. I went back and looked at the 2003 cell phone issue.
It's amazing just how horrible the old PacBell system actually was.
While the differences between AT&T TDMA/AMPS and Verizon CDMA/AMPS were
still fairly high, the PacBell/Cingular 1900 MHz GSM network was just a
joke in terms of "No Service."

They only did six urban areas back then, SF, LA, NYC, DC, Dallas, and
Chicago. Verizon was the best in all six areas, but only in SF and LA
were the differences all that high. In NYC and LA, AT&T got dinged for
"circuits full" which indeed was a huge problem in NYC at the time, as
they struggled to add capacity fast enough to keep up with their
subscriber growth.

---

› See More: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:57:30 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old 800-
>> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
>> subscribers! ;-)
>
>I was at the library earlier tonight, and saw the collection of old
>Consumer Reports. I went back and looked at the 2003 cell phone issue.
>It's amazing just how horrible the old PacBell system actually was.
>While the differences between AT&T TDMA/AMPS and Verizon CDMA/AMPS were
>still fairly high, the PacBell/Cingular 1900 MHz GSM network was just a
>joke in terms of "No Service."

Simply not true.

>They only did six urban areas back then, SF, LA, NYC, DC, Dallas, and
>Chicago. Verizon was the best in all six areas, but only in SF and LA
>were the differences all that high. In NYC and LA, AT&T got dinged for
>"circuits full" which indeed was a huge problem in NYC at the time, as
>they struggled to add capacity fast enough to keep up with their
>subscriber growth.

That wasn't what CR was trying to measure, and the differences were
relatively small in any event.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

"Richard B. Gilbert" <[email protected]> wrote in news:47A7DC93.30204
@comcast.net:

> When the old phone bites the dust or when a new phone will do something
> I NEED and the old one won't, THEN I'll buy a new one. Each time I've
> replaced a phone, it has been because the battery was starting to fail
> and I couldn't see buying a replacement battery for an antique!
>
>
>

Anybody got a rubber duckie antenna for the original Motorola Brick
handheld? I loaned it out to someone who was traveling on an emergency so
he'd have an emergency analog phone for the boonies, and the black rubber
just split apart when it got bent. The phone is perfect and still works
but I want to keep it original. It's quite a piece of history, you know.

$1.99 at a thrift shop. I have 2 battery packs I restored at Batteries
Plus, the 12V car cord that replaces the batteries for mobile, the carrying
case, even the manual.

A real Motorola made by Motorola, not the Chinese slavers, you can't hurt
it.....

That Star Tac was the best phone Motorola ever made....

The shrink tubing I covered the antenna coil with looks like hell on the
brick.

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
> into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
> handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal
> bars, calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!),
> calls do not drop, and sound quality is superb

This comment about Nokia is only about cellular radio bands.....

The Nokia N800 Linux internet tablet has the most sensitive 802.11b/g
transceiver I have ever seen and it has no external antenna! The silly
thing can connect and use wifi hotspots my Gateway laptop cannot even
detect! It's Bluetooth transceiver is also very hot. It will successfully
connect to my MotoROKR Z6m DUN to the internet on EVDO when the tablet is
way beyond Bluetooth range...60' away from the phone in the bedroom on
charge because the Nokia killed it streaming video and audio...(c;

If the Nokia phones are as hot as the N800 wifi/bluetooth radios, they are
one hot phone.

Grow-up Navas and accept the truth!

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:02:58 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>>> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's TDMA
>>> areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built out
>>> (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get added to
>>> increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the system hasn't
>>> really changed _significantly_ in some time for the legacy 800MHz
>>> carriers.
>>
>>The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
>>much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>>range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
>
> Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly
> comparable.
>
>>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
>>that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
>>GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but you
>>can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.
>
> Not true, as I've proven repeatedly in the past.
>
>>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old
>>> 800-
>>> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
>>> subscribers! ;-)
>>
>>LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
>>neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile, it
>>was Cingular that was trying).
>>
>>However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
>>coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the
>>Bay Area.
>
> Again, not true.
>
>>The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
>>good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
>>Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
>>too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
>>spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.
>
> In fact doing quite well in this area.
>
>>I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says about
>>the quality of Bay Area coverage.
>
> Believe you instead?
>
>>Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they were
>>tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with AT&T a
>>distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.
>
> It said nothing of the kind.
>
> Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:21:13 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Grow-up Navas and accept the truth!

I rest my case.

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

At 04 Feb 2008 18:11:24 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
> >> Cingular/AT&T.
> >
> > On what planet?
>
> Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area),
> and Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes,
> and thus with extremely low margins of error.


Following your advice, I did. ;-)

None of the surveys I found references to online addressed coverage
_specifically_ (other than the "Consumer Checkbook" you referenced in a
later post.)

For example, the only Yankee Group survey I could find that put VZW on top
of anything was a four year-old survey of what carrier most business people
used:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1A25757C0A9629
C8B63

(Verizon was tops at 22% over Nextel at 20% and AT&T at 16%...
In 2003...
When ATTWS and Cingular were still separate companies and VZW was the
largest carrier.) Yes, Verizon "won" but it wasn't about network coverage
or quality. Applying the Yankee Group criteria (most consumers) to food
would arguably make McDonald's the "best" restaurant in the US.


J.D. Powers rated Verizon's network with the best "call quality" (not
coverage- they didn't rank that) in 2003 and 2006. The 2003 survey ranked
Nextel in 2nd place. Nextel? I've listened to 70-year old 78-RPM records
cleaned with steel wool that sound clearer than a Nextel phone call. That
strains any credibilty that survey has in my mind! ;-)

J.D. Powers has also ranked Verizon highest in customer satisfaction more
recently, but that doesn't necessarily equate to "best coverage,"
particularly since they were tied with T-Mobile, who has never been accused
of having the best coverage... <cue spooky music> ...UNTIL NOW! (see
below!) ;-)


> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in
> three others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.

Do the CR surveys rank coverage seperately? I haven't seen this January's,
but my recollection of earlier years' surveys was that "coverage" was
included in a soft of "call problems" category which included a variety of
reception problems, like no signal
static, dropped calls, can't hear other party, etc.

While I didn't read t
is year's yet, I found this quote from in it RCR Wireless News: 'T-Mobile's
service was "on par with Verizon in most of the metro areas we
surveyed..."'

T-Mo "on par with Verizon?" Still vouching for CR's survey's "coverage
cred?" ;-)

> Even when Verizon and AT&T turn off their AMPS networks, rural
> carriers have indicated that they will leave their AMPS networks
> in place for the foreseeable future.


Which will be great for whatever fraction of VZW's customers can utilize
it. As Smartphones and Multimedia phones continue to increase in
popularity, the percentage of VZW customers with analog capability dwindles
(unfortunately.)


> I always bring along a phone on Cingular/AT&T when I travel, just to test
> the differences.


You keep an _active_ AT&T phone just to compare it's coverage vs. the
carrier you already use and are already convinced of the superiority of?
That's pretty geeky, and almost as incredible as Nextel ranking second
in call quality in a survey! (Although, admittedly, I used to drive around
with a pre-IRDB Nokia 5120 in field test mode to compare signal strength
of the 800MHz carriers!) ;-)




> Last year, in Oregon, far north California, the Sierra Nevada, and
> Canada, the advantage of CDMA and AMPS was significant. In many cases
> it was roaming onto other CDMA networks, and occasionally AMPS, but
> in most cases it was native coverage. In short, all the surveys
> and tests were confirmed.


My very unscientific anecdotal "tests" confirm Verizon's slight coverage
edge as well- whenever I'm anywhere where my phone doesn't get a signal
(increasingly rare these days), I look around to see who does. Very rarely
do I see a Verizon user staring at his display and cursing lack of signal.
(But it has happened in my experience. In fact, my suburban Denver
neighborhood had no Verizon or AT&T coverage when I moved here four years
ago- I had to loan my realtor my T-Mobile phone to call her office when she
showed us my house the first time. At the time, the only carriers that
worked here were Sprint/Qwest [Qwest is a Sprint MVNO here in Colorado], T-
Mo and Nextel! My neighborhood certainly challenged my long-held belief in
800-MHz superiority!)

Last weekend my only "no signal" observation was with Nextel in Breckenridge.



(Reminding me again how greatly T-Mo has improved over the last four years-
I brought my PagePlus "backup phone" with me but never even tuened it on.
When I first moved to Colorado, I relied on my Beyond Wireless TDMA phones
whenever I left the Denver metro!) A Nextel-wielding couple seemed
surprised they couldn't get a signal at the edge of town. Frankly, any
Nextel users that travel often should only be that surprised when they CAN
get a signal! ;-)

>
> Both the V5xx series and RAZR series are actually quite good.

Funny. I've talked to many RAZR owners and they all had one thing in
common. Either they traded them recently (because they couldn't stand
them), or wanted to, desperately. (because they couldn't stand them)

> My V3xx has excellent sound quality. Have you ever tried one?

Not that one specifically, no. I'd be willing to bet it does have excellent
sound quality, for a cellular handset (Mot. does manage to produce a good
one now and then)...and yet still doesn't sound as good as even the
entry-level/freebie nokia handsets.

> Again, that's not my experience with the Motorola V5xx series and the
> V3xx against several Nokia handsets -- the Motorola handsets have
> performed as well or better than the Nokia handsets.
>

If what you say is true, I'm very surprised (shocked!, even). How you got a
motorola anything to outperform a nokia anything in any test you could
possibly imagine is beyond me. I've carried both brands, many different
handsets each, often on the same network and towers. The difference is
dramatic, and that is NOT good for Motorola. As I've stated before, I've
seen many areas where Motorola couldn't connect a call at all and nokia on
the same tower was rock-solid reliable, in spite of showing really weak
signal strength. -Dave

In alt.cellular.attws RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
> I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
> didn't drop with another
>

Talking to empty air is a real *****. Especially when one person can hear you
and you can't hear them or the reverse happens. A common occurance with GSM
and very rare indeed with CDMA. I have experience with T-Mobile, Sprint and
Verizon post-paid to back this up and AT&T pre-paid ... GSM simply does this a
lot compared to other technologies.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable
>>> consumer resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably
>>> HATE it. -Dave
>>
>>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. ...
>
> I don't even hold a candle to you in that department, Steven.
>

Nice post edit Navas. Why did you cut his text?

He actually wrote:

"As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
newsgroups!)."

You don't like the truth about your spamming? And you certainly didn't like
the fact that I emailed you a legitimate complaint.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

SMS <[email protected]> writes:
>In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.

The way you test coverage is by testing coverage, not by
surveying cell phone end users.

As should be obvious from this thread, the perceptions of end
users vary wildly and certainly can't be relied upon for
something like this.

People tend to either like their service provider or hate it.
If they like it, they will "forget" about service issues
they've experienced when surveyed on the quality of service,
and if they hate it, they will exaggerate them. This is
simple human nature.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

SMS <[email protected]>
>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
>as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
>newsgroups!).

I've regretted just about every time I trusted CR about
something. It eventually got so bad that I canceled my
subscription because it simply wasn't worth the money.

They recommended a digital camera; I bought it and it was
crap. They recommended a particular toaster and claimed that
it could produce multiple batches of decent toast in quick
succession; I bought it and discovered that not only was the
second batch of toast awful, the first was almost as bad.
They recommended Cambridge Soundworks speakers; I tried them
and discovered they were tinny and weren't anywhere near the
quality of the Kef speakers I ended up buying.

To give them credit, they warned me that the 1995 Ford Taurus
had a bad reliability record before I bought a used one, and
we ended up spending thousands of dollars in repairs that
wouldn't have been necessary on a decent car, and I used
their new-car pricing service to get a good price on a Honda
Odyssey.

In short, I've found that their auto data is pretty good, but
all of their other reviews and ratings are extremely
unreliable.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws RBM <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
>> I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
>> didn't drop with another
>>
>
> Talking to empty air is a real *****. Especially when one person can hear you
> and you can't hear them or the reverse happens. A common occurance with GSM
> and very rare indeed with CDMA. I have experience with T-Mobile, Sprint and
> Verizon post-paid to back this up and AT&T pre-paid ... GSM simply does this a
> lot compared to other technologies.

I've used GSM in other countries, and it's nothing like GSM in the U.S..
The fault does not lie with the technology, it's possible to deploy
GSM in a way that you do not have those problems, it just hasn't been
done yet.

The U.S. presents more deployment problems for GSM than for CDMA because
of the vast open spaces, and suburbs where residents fight towers, which
is a less common problem in western Europe and Asia. A good comparison
is Australia, where they used CDMA to replace GSM in the outback. Then
they wanted to swap CDMA 2000 for another type of CDMA, and it's been
delayed because of deployment and coverage issues.

In my area, SF Bay Area, one reason the 800 MHz CDMA coverage is so much
better than GSM coverage is because of the topography, and the green
belt. A CDMA tower on the edge of the greenbelt provides coverage much
further into the "tower-free" zones. Similarly, a tower's on the edges
of the urban part of suburbs extend coverage further into the suburbs
where zoning doesn't allow towers. This has been an ongoing issue where
I live, where the residents complain about AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile,
then turn around and prevent towers in their back yards.

"Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS <[email protected]>
>>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
>>as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
>>newsgroups!).
>
> I've regretted just about every time I trusted CR about
> something. It eventually got so bad that I canceled my
> subscription because it simply wasn't worth the money.
>
> They recommended a digital camera; I bought it and it was
> crap. They recommended a particular toaster and claimed that
> it could produce multiple batches of decent toast in quick
> succession; I bought it and discovered that not only was the
> second batch of toast awful, the first was almost as bad.
> They recommended Cambridge Soundworks speakers; I tried them
> and discovered they were tinny and weren't anywhere near the
> quality of the Kef speakers I ended up buying.

Snip

Yup. Every CR I've read, there is usually a product in there that I own
(and love) and CR hates it. On the other hand, I've been shocked by some CR
recommended items that I know (from experience) are pure crapola.

As I've stated before, CR is a great consumer reference. If CR hates it, I
know I'm probably gonna love it. -Dave

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> writes:
>> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>> others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
>
> The way you test coverage is by testing coverage, not by
> surveying cell phone end users.

This is true.

Did you see the news story where they accompanied the Verizon testing
van? They tested all major networks for comparison. There was never any
allegation by any other carrier, or by the news media, that the tests
were somehow skewed. The one pseudo-complaint was that the van did not
test in-building coverage, but since most of Verizon is at 800 MHz, the
indoor coverage would have been equal to, or better (comparatively) than
the outdoor results.

No other carrier ever tried to dispute the results. Sprint claims to
have "the most powerful network," and T-Mobile concentrates on having
good customer service and the most peak minutes at a price point, but
neither claims to have the most coverage. Cingular briefly tried to
counter the Verizon campaign with their short-lived "fewest dropped
calls," ad campaign, but dropped it after lawsuits challenged the claim,
and even the company they hired to do the survey disputed Cingular's
advertising claims. Even if the claim had been true, in order to have a
dropped call you first have to be able to place or receive a call! Now
AT&T has switched to the intentionally more vague claim of "More Bars in
More Places."

> As should be obvious from this thread, the perceptions of end
> users vary wildly and certainly can't be relied upon for
> something like this.

They're not a double-blind test, but don't read less into them than they
really mean. Remember, the surveys of users are test of coverage by
default. I.e., the Checkbook survey included surveys of coverage while
traveling and local coverage. There is no reason to believe that one
carrier's customers would claim coverage where none exists or claim no
coverage where it does exist, any more than another carrier's customers
would claim this (Navas excepted). These are huge samples in statistical
terms, and false perceptions would cancel out.