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

>>> "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

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.

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.

Verizon rules, all other drool. That is simply the facts.

"Mij Adyaw" <Mij@DontWantNoEmail.net> wrote in message
news:vnqlf.14316$Wu.12788@fed1read05...
> 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.
>
>

> 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.
>

There is no difference in network quality. This from a Verizon customer, by
the way. -Dave

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in customer service and that one issue will
significantly tip the scales.

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:A0rlf.184$QQ1.166@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> There is no difference in network quality. This from a Verizon customer,
> by the way. -Dave
>
>

Agent_C wrote:

> Particularly frustrating is that virtually everything in the current line have
> cameras. I frequently visit government contractors, where camera equipped
> phones are forbidden.

That's one of my main beefs with the cellular carriers. Only Nextel
(before the Sprint merger) seemed unaffected. I used to have Nextel.
I miss their selection of quality phones without cameras. It's too bad
their data service was so far behind Verizon and Cingular, otherwise I
probably wouldn't have switched. I will say that connection quality
seems better with Cingular than it was with Nextel's IDEN service, but
Nextel's (voice) service was acceptable for me.

I was at a Nokia booth in the mall the other day. They had some nice
GSM phones that I would really be interested in. Why won't Cingular
sell them? I suspect it's because they are trying to impel the sending
of pictures, so they can charge their customers more money. Cingular
is not alone in this. However, if I was to buy a phone from Nokia
directly I would have to pay top dollar, and would not get any breaks
on the price.

Again, I HATE IT that the cellular carriers will not offer a selection
of quality phones without a camera! : ^ (

Agent_C wrote:
>> Mike T. wrote:
>>>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.

I tend to believe the above statement that: 'In NYC and LA, the
comparison isn't even close.' I spend a lot of time in the NYC area
(although not really in Manhattan). When I am near Manhattan, I do
have trouble making and keeping a connection. This is especially true
regarding data service. Ask (almost) any NYC resident, and they will
tell you that Verizon beats the other majors hands down as far as
connection quality there. Perhaps it is the topography of Manhattan
that favors CDMA over GSM, or maybe Verizon just has more and/or better
placed towers. I can't really speak regarding LA, but I wouldn't be
surprised that Verizon is superior there also in regards to connection
quality.

Perhaps in other areas without the proliferation of skyscrapers, hills,
and population density, the various carriers have roughly simular
connection quality, varying neighborhood by neighborhood.

GomJabbar wrote:
> Agent_C wrote:
>>> Mike T. wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> I tend to believe the above statement that: 'In NYC and LA, the
> comparison isn't even close.' I spend a lot of time in the NYC area
> (although not really in Manhattan). When I am near Manhattan, I do
> have trouble making and keeping a connection. This is especially true
> regarding data service. Ask (almost) any NYC resident, and they will
> tell you that Verizon beats the other majors hands down as far as
> connection quality there. Perhaps it is the topography of Manhattan
> that favors CDMA over GSM, or maybe Verizon just has more and/or better
> placed towers. I can't really speak regarding LA, but I wouldn't be
> surprised that Verizon is superior there also in regards to connection
> quality.

Remember, Cingular had no presence in NYC for a long time. Then they
began using T-Mobile's network in exchange for letting T-Mobile use
their west coast network. AT&T had terrible capacity problems in NYC,
and now they are sharing their 800 Mhz spectrum with more users, after
the acquisition by Cingular.

CDMA is a better choice in densely populated areas because it uses
spectrum more efficiently.

> Perhaps in other areas without the proliferation of skyscrapers, hills,
> and population density, the various carriers have roughly simular
> connection quality, varying neighborhood by neighborhood.

This is possible. In South Florida, the carriers all seem very good. In
the SF Bay Area, Verizon has the same advantage that it has in NYC, with
far, far better coverage, and coverage in many parts of the Bay Area
where the other carriers have no coverage at all.