Results 1 to 15 of 92
- 03-22-2006, 11:52 AM #1SMSGuest
- 03-22-2006, 12:57 PM #2John R. CopelandGuest
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.
- 03-22-2006, 01:03 PM #3John NavasGuest
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>
- 03-22-2006, 01:19 PM #4DecaturTxCowboyGuest
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.
- 03-22-2006, 01:21 PM #5DecaturTxCowboyGuest
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.
- 03-22-2006, 01:50 PM #6SMSGuest
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.
- 03-22-2006, 02:32 PM #7John NavasGuest
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>
- 03-22-2006, 02:35 PM #8John NavasGuest
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:
"Its 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>
- 03-22-2006, 08:32 PM #9Isaiah BeardGuest
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.
- 03-22-2006, 08:36 PM #10Isaiah BeardGuest
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.
- 03-22-2006, 08:48 PM #11Agent_CGuest
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
- 03-23-2006, 09:53 AM #12Guest
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.
- 03-23-2006, 10:29 AM #13SMSGuest
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.
- 03-23-2006, 12:28 PM #14John NavasGuest
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>
- 03-23-2006, 12:31 PM #15John NavasGuest
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
- Bell Mobility
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.verizon
- Sony Ericsson
The Ukrainian Review
in Chit Chat