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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06
> Dec 2005 15:54:09 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much
> better.

What was the result Powers came up with?
and did they poll Dave?

-Quick

---

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

Dave wrote:
>> 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

Obviously they didn't poll Dave... or they would have had
different results.

-Quick

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:53:33 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a
>rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.

John you keep on saying that, but other than your personal
observations, what data can you point to?

A_C

John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little
isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
I suspect many others are having a different user experience.

Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
one doesn't count. ; - )

I should have read the OP's original link!

"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:E9rlf.14320$Wu.7488@fed1read05...
> There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in customer service and that one issue will
> significantly tip the scales.
>

In Cingular's favor

>
> 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.

Last I checked, Cingular offered several models from Nokia . . . some with
cameras and some without. But you can always purchase a GSM Nokia phone off
ebay and pop your Cingular SIM into it, as long as it is an unlocked
hone. -Dave

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:31:58
-0500, Agent_C <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:53:33 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a
>>rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
>
>John you keep on saying that, but other than your personal
>observations, what data can you point to?

Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is to
infer it. Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange SIMs
(thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best coverage
currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which is
assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:

Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks
here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network
coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available. In
fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM coverage is
much better than Verizon, including many spots here in the Tri-Valley East
Bay.

If you do some checking with Google Groups, you'll see that Steven has a
personal vendetta against GSM based just on a coverage problem at his wife's
workplace that really pissed him off. Since then, even though he's now on
Verizon, he lurks here to keep beating his anti-GSM drum. My guess is that in
addition to having an axe to grind he craves attention and/or validation of
his switch to Verizon. You'll also find that I've documented objective
examples of clear bias, and that I have no technology bias -- I've
consistently stated that CDMA and GSM are comparably capable technologies.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on 7 Dec 2005
05:20:11 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John is probably fortunate to have good Cingular coverage in his little
>isolated spot in the Bay Area. However the Bay Area is quite large and
>I suspect many others are having a different user experience.

I actually have excellent coverage all over the greater Bay Area. I don't
stay in one little spot -- just the opposite.

>Can anyone refer to a reasonably recent, reputable, Bay Area poll or
>review comparing the various cellular providers? Sorry, a JN poll of
>one doesn't count. ; - )

Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is to
infer it. Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange SIMs
(thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best coverage
currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which is
assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:

Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks
here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network
coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available. In
fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM coverage is
much better than Verizon.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 7 Dec
2005 09:44:06 -0500, "Mike T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>
>Last I checked, Cingular offered several models from Nokia . . . some with
>cameras and some without. But you can always purchase a GSM Nokia phone off
>ebay and pop your Cingular SIM into it, as long as it is an unlocked
>hone. -Dave

With the necessary bands (850 and 1900).

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005
07:45:06 GMT, "Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06
>> Dec 2005 15:54:09 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much
>> better.
>
>What was the result Powers came up with?
>and did they poll Dave?

<http://www.jdpower.com/>

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:22:47
GMT, Michael Wise <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >The same goes for the San Francisco Bay Area.
>>
>> Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
>
>No it doesn't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on
> Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:45:06 GMT, "Quick"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06
>>> Dec 2005 15:54:09 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It's actually not terribly well done. Powers is much
>>> better.
>>
>> What was the result Powers came up with?
>> and did they poll Dave?
>
> <http://www.jdpower.com/>

(I guess they didn't poll Dave...) Interesting that VZW came in second
to T-Mobile in business service. I had the impression that VZW was
focusing on that (maybe they are?). I tried the "zoom in" feature 'cause
I thought I was going to get details... it made the chart bigger (I assume
the information is there but I didn't look further). I was wondering how
many businesses/size of those businesses/market share type of thing
was in the poll sample and for each provider. T-mobile, in second or
first. Who would of thunk?

-Quick

Thanks for the clarification John.

BTW, I recall your many appearances on TechTV; nice to have you here.

Regards,

A_C


On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:46:29 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:31:58
>-0500, Agent_C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:53:33 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Yet more pro-Verizon anti-Cingular propaganda. For Pete's sake, give it a
>>>rest. Cingular actually has better coverage here than Verizon.
>>
>>John you keep on saying that, but other than your personal
>>observations, what data can you point to?
>
>Hard data on comparative coverage is non-public, so the best we can do is to
>infer it. Consumer surveys don't accurately reflect the combined Cingular
>coverage because of customers still on TDMA, still with old 32K orange SIMs
>(thus not ENS enabled), still with old orange handsets, or still with blue
>SIMs, among other factors (e.g., handset quality differences). Best coverage
>currently requires new 64K orange SIMs in good ENS-enabled devices, which is
>assumed both in my prior statements and in the following analysis:
>
>Cingular now uses both the blue (old ATTWS) and orange (old Cingular) networks
>here in Northern California. Blue alone arguably has the best single network
>coverage of any technology thanks to historical tower siting (by Cellular
>One/AirTouch). Orange had very good network coverage (thanks to PacBell).
>Combined they almost certainly give the best network coverage available. In
>fact it's quite easy to point to areas where combined Cingular GSM coverage is
>much better than Verizon, including many spots here in the Tri-Valley East
>Bay.
>
>If you do some checking with Google Groups, you'll see that Steven has a
>personal vendetta against GSM based just on a coverage problem at his wife's
>workplace that really pissed him off. Since then, even though he's now on
>Verizon, he lurks here to keep beating his anti-GSM drum. My guess is that in
>addition to having an axe to grind he craves attention and/or validation of
>his switch to Verizon. You'll also find that I've documented objective
>examples of clear bias, and that I have no technology bias -- I've
>consistently stated that CDMA and GSM are comparably capable technologies.

Quick wrote:

> (I guess they didn't poll Dave...) Interesting that VZW came in second
> to T-Mobile in business service. I had the impression that VZW was
> focusing on that (maybe they are?). I tried the "zoom in" feature 'cause
> I thought I was going to get details... it made the chart bigger (I assume
> the information is there but I didn't look further). I was wondering how
> many businesses/size of those businesses/market share type of thing
> was in the poll sample and for each provider. T-mobile, in second or
> first. Who would of thunk?

Not surprising that Verizon and T-Mobile tied for the top carriers in
the SF Bay Area. Look at the details though. Verizon was tops in
customer satisfaction, while T-Mobile was tops in cost. This is
essentially the story of these two carriers. It's why Circuit City
fought so hard to get these two carriers to sell in their stores. I was
surprised to see that at the Circuit City in Sunnyvale, Verizon actually
has a sign on the front of the store, next to the Circuit City sign.

However, there is something obviously wrong with the J.D. Power Survey,
when T-Mobile ranks first in business services, with Verizon second, and
Cingular third. Based on high speed data, Verizon should be first, with
Cingular second, and Sprint third. Maybe "Business satisfaction" was
based on cost, since Verizon blew everyone else away on call quality.

The Consumer Reports survey has historically been the benchmark of
cellular studies, with the largest sample, and best methodology.