Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65
  1. #16
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:27:57
    -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Jeremy wrote:
    >
    >> I suspect that much of Verizon's puffing about their allegedly-superior
    >> network is just the stuff that advertising agencies dream up. As the
    >> disclaimer says, "Your results may vary."

    >
    >Not according to all the surveys that have been done. Look at Consumer
    >Reports survey of all the different cities. Very large statistical
    >sample too.


    Actually poor statistical sample, not to mention poor methodology.

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



    See More: Is this true?




  2. #17

    Re: Is this true?

    SMS wrote:
    > [email protected]lid wrote:
    >
    >> Jeremy wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> My daughter once signed up for a Verizon pay-as-you-go plan, and they
    >>> billed her for all calls that went to voicemail, against her prepaid
    >>> minutes. In addition, any call that SHE made to retrieve her
    >>> messages--EVEN IF MADE FROM A LANDLINE--were also charged as minutes
    >>> of airtime!
    >>>

    >>
    >> imho, the best pre-paid plan is from Virgin Mobile. 25c/minute for
    >> first 10 minutes each day, then 10c/minute for the rest of the day.
    >> No free minutes anytime, but also no roaming charges.

    >
    >
    > LOL. No roaming charges because they don't let you roam. The cost may be
    > good, but the coverage isn't. Ditto for T-Mobile, which is 10 cents all
    > the time, with a one year expiration if you get the $100 card.
    >
    > > If you can get a

    >
    >> signal then the most you are charged is 25c/minute. You can check
    >> voicemail from a landline for free. Spring is Virgin's network so
    >> coverage is same as Sprint's.

    >
    >
    > No it's not. With Sprint, you can roam onto other CDMA networks, as well
    > as onto AMPS if your phone is tri-mode. With Virgin, you are limited to
    > Sprint's own network.


    Ahhh, OK, didn't know about that (never had a Sprint contract). So coverage is good as Sprint's
    network then. Which isn't too bad wherever I used my phone (Austin area, excepting my house which
    is bad for all networks save Verizon). I was able to take it on trips and use it pretty much
    everywhere except at Taos and Mexico.

    -Jason





  3. #18
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:27:57
    > -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Jeremy wrote:
    >>
    >>> I suspect that much of Verizon's puffing about their allegedly-superior
    >>> network is just the stuff that advertising agencies dream up. As the
    >>> disclaimer says, "Your results may vary."

    >>
    >>Not according to all the surveys that have been done. Look at Consumer
    >>Reports survey of all the different cities. Very large statistical
    >>sample too.

    >
    > Actually poor statistical sample, not to mention poor methodology.
    >


    Funny- that wasn't your position last year when the numbers were more
    favorable to Cingular.

    Hypocrite.





  4. #19
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:01:45 -0700,
    "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:27:57
    >> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Jeremy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I suspect that much of Verizon's puffing about their allegedly-superior
    >>>> network is just the stuff that advertising agencies dream up. As the
    >>>> disclaimer says, "Your results may vary."
    >>>
    >>>Not according to all the surveys that have been done. Look at Consumer
    >>>Reports survey of all the different cities. Very large statistical
    >>>sample too.

    >>
    >> Actually poor statistical sample, not to mention poor methodology.

    >
    >Funny- that wasn't your position last year when the numbers were more
    >favorable to Cingular.


    I have never endorsed CR (CU) ratings of cellular (or much else for that
    matter). Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

    >Hypocrite.


    Liar.

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



  5. #20
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

    Scott wrote:
    > "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:27:57
    >> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Jeremy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I suspect that much of Verizon's puffing about their allegedly-superior
    >>>> network is just the stuff that advertising agencies dream up. As the
    >>>> disclaimer says, "Your results may vary."
    >>> Not according to all the surveys that have been done. Look at Consumer
    >>> Reports survey of all the different cities. Very large statistical
    >>> sample too.

    >> Actually poor statistical sample, not to mention poor methodology.
    >>

    >
    > Funny- that wasn't your position last year when the numbers were more
    > favorable to Cingular.


    The Consumer Reports survey uses a very large statistical sample, far
    larger than necessary actually.

    As to methodology, some criticize the fact that it's a voluntary survey.
    What these individuals fail to take into account is that the survey
    isn't asking wireless subscribers which carrier they believe is the
    best. The survey is a series of questions regarding the wireless
    subscriber's experience with their own carrier. Unless you believe that
    a Cingular subscriber is more likely to give their carrier a bad rating
    than a Verizon subscriber, for no reason, the methodology is as good as
    you're going to get. The fact that they break it down by geographic
    location adds more credibility to it. Furthermore, other studies by
    entities other than CR, always come up with similar results.

    It's just sour grapes by Navas, who is furious that his beloved carrier
    consistently does so poorly. He has no data to indicate that any of the
    surveys are incorrect, nor has he ever been able to point out ant
    problems with the methodology or the sample. It's his old "rubbish,
    nonsense, etc." crap all over again. He never tires of it.



  6. #21
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Wed, 1 Mar 2006
    > 21:01:45 -0700,
    > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
    >>> 17:27:57
    >>> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Jeremy wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I suspect that much of Verizon's puffing about their
    >>>>> allegedly-superior
    >>>>> network is just the stuff that advertising agencies dream up. As the
    >>>>> disclaimer says, "Your results may vary."
    >>>>
    >>>>Not according to all the surveys that have been done. Look at Consumer
    >>>>Reports survey of all the different cities. Very large statistical
    >>>>sample too.
    >>>
    >>> Actually poor statistical sample, not to mention poor methodology.


    Actually no worse a sample than any other published survey, and the
    methodology is no different than any other. After all, Novice, all surveys
    are done with a voluntary group of people. The results of every survey
    require those sampled to volunteer to ask questions- nobody is ever forced
    to take one.

    Yet another area where you have no practical knowledge.

    >>
    >>Funny- that wasn't your position last year when the numbers were more
    >>favorable to Cingular.

    >
    > I have never endorsed CR (CU) ratings of cellular (or much else for that
    > matter). Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.


    Won't take long- Google is my friend.

    >
    >>Hypocrite.

    >
    > Liar.
    >


    I'm not the one posting lies and misinformation throughout this group and
    then hiding like a scared child when confronted. You are, and your actions
    are far more indicative of a liar than mine. That is, indicative of either
    a liar or an uneducated buffoon.





  7. #22
    Jeremy
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

    "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:4406ea01$0$95982
    >
    > As to methodology, some criticize the fact that it's a voluntary survey.
    > What these individuals fail to take into account is that the survey isn't
    > asking wireless subscribers which carrier they believe is the best. The
    > survey is a series of questions regarding the wireless subscriber's
    > experience with their own carrier. Unless you believe that a Cingular
    > subscriber is more likely to give their carrier a bad rating than a
    > Verizon subscriber, for no reason, the methodology is as good as you're
    > going to get.



    The arrogance of some of the Cingular reps that I talked to, prior to my
    switching to Sprint a month ago, was so offensive as to negate any value of
    their allegedly-superior network. And, for those of us that were on TDMA,
    their network was very much INFERIOR, apparently by design. Numerous
    posters across America have been complaining about dropped calls, no signal
    and arm-twisting to "upgrade" to GSM when they called Customer Service.

    There is something insulting about a service provider that takes one's money
    every month and DELIBERATELY fails to provide adequate service, coupled with
    hiring ill-trained, inconsiderate and incompetent customer service reps.
    And I've been reading that SBC Communications, one of Cingular's parents,
    has developed the same reputation for arrogance with many of their wireline
    customers. The pattern is disturbing, considering that the wireless
    industry is consolidating, leaving us with fewer competitive options.

    Bottom line, at least as far as I am concerned, is that I chose to go with a
    network that reputedly was less advanced than Cingular's, and that
    purportedly had some of the worst CSRs in the industry. I was very
    pleasantly surprised to find that the network was audibly superior, has been
    much more reliable in terms of no dropped calls, was a few bucks cheaper
    than my old ATTWS Digital One Rate plan, and the customer service reps that
    I've spoken to were all courteous and accommodating. As an example, I
    phoned asking if they could permanently block the Caller ID from going out
    on my three lines, since it displayed my company name, even though the
    phones were being used by me and two other family members for personal use.
    The Sprint rep told me that there was an option to display the actual users'
    names, rather than block Caller ID entirely. I did not know that this was
    even possible, and I jumped at the chance to make the changes. A few hours
    later, those changes propagated throughout the Sprint Network, and now each
    of my phones displays a different name on the called-party's ID screen.

    When Sprint ported one of my numbers from Cingular last month, the rep was
    very meticulous about getting all the information correctly, because, she
    said, Cingular would reject the porting if there were any discrepancies.
    The port went through, smooth as silk, in less than two hours.

    The reps were all pleasant, they thanked me for my business, and they did
    not sound as though they were reading from a script, as did the Cingular
    reps. My personal experiences with Sprint reps does not match the J.D.
    Power ratings for Sprint. All I can say is that I am very pleasantly
    surprised and delighted with my experience with Sprint.

    It is shameful that Cingular's senior management has turned a blind eye
    against the many complaints of insensitive and rude customer contacts. But
    they will pay a price in the marketplace for that. Still, it seems foolish
    to me, since the problem could be easily corrected, if only senior
    management would decide to change things.





  8. #23
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 2 Mar 2006 06:58:34
    -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

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


    >>>>>Not according to all the surveys that have been done. Look at Consumer
    >>>>>Reports survey of all the different cities. Very large statistical
    >>>>>sample too.
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually poor statistical sample, not to mention poor methodology.

    >
    >Actually no worse a sample than any other published survey, and the
    >methodology is no different than any other.


    CR uses a self-selected group from its subscriber base, whereas others (e.g.,
    JD Powers) use a more rigorous methodology.

    >> I have never endorsed CR (CU) ratings of cellular (or much else for that
    >> matter). Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

    >
    >Won't take long- Google is my friend.


    Knock yourself out. But then we both know you won't, because you're just
    blowing nasty smoke, as usual.

    Run along home now.

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



  9. #24
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:50:12
    -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >It's just sour grapes by Navas, who is furious that his beloved carrier
    >consistently does so poorly. He has no data to indicate that any of the
    >surveys are incorrect, nor has he ever been able to point out ant
    >problems with the methodology or the sample. It's his old "rubbish,
    >nonsense, etc." crap all over again. He never tires of it.


    Total baloney.

    Have a nice day.

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



  10. #25
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

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

    In <c2FNf.12611$XE6.1432@trnddc07> on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:27:52 GMT, "Jeremy"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >It is shameful that Cingular's senior management has turned a blind eye
    >against the many complaints of insensitive and rude customer contacts. But
    >they will pay a price in the marketplace for that. ...


    Unfortunately for your thesis and agenda, that's not what the numbers say --
    churn is down, not up.

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



  11. #26
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 2 Mar 2006
    > 06:58:34
    > -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]...

    >
    >>>>>>Not according to all the surveys that have been done. Look at Consumer
    >>>>>>Reports survey of all the different cities. Very large statistical
    >>>>>>sample too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Actually poor statistical sample, not to mention poor methodology.

    >>
    >>Actually no worse a sample than any other published survey, and the
    >>methodology is no different than any other.

    >
    > CR uses a self-selected group from its subscriber base, whereas others
    > (e.g.,
    > JD Powers) use a more rigorous methodology.


    CR uses a randomly selected group from its subscriber base. Another
    erroneous post from you- the streak stays alive.

    >
    >>> I have never endorsed CR (CU) ratings of cellular (or much else for that
    >>> matter). Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

    >>
    >>Won't take long- Google is my friend.

    >
    > Knock yourself out. But then we both know you won't, because you're just
    > blowing nasty smoke, as usual.


    No John- you are the one who doesn't follow up in here. You avoid the facts
    like a child avoids liver and onions- you haven't tasted it but know you
    don't like it. You are the one that avoids answering the call for factual
    backup to your claims- as soon as you are called on something, you disappear
    from the thread.

    Face it- your antiquated knowledge of antiquated technology does you no good
    here. An entire generation has graduated from high school since you were an
    expert in anything timely. Too bad you couldn't keep up with the times and
    not have to inflate your ego by posting a bunch of needless FAQ's and
    uninformed and inaccurate claims to Usenet.

    >
    > Run along home now.
    >


    Get a clue now.





  12. #27
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <c2FNf.12611$XE6.1432@trnddc07> on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:27:52 GMT,
    > "Jeremy"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>It is shameful that Cingular's senior management has turned a blind eye
    >>against the many complaints of insensitive and rude customer contacts.
    >>But
    >>they will pay a price in the marketplace for that. ...

    >
    > Unfortunately for your thesis and agenda, that's not what the numbers
    > say --
    > churn is down, not up.
    >
    > --

    And still the highest of the national carriers. They still suck, just not
    as bad. Most can see that- Novice has his own agenda.





  13. #28
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:50:12
    > -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>It's just sour grapes by Navas, who is furious that his beloved carrier
    >>consistently does so poorly. He has no data to indicate that any of the
    >>surveys are incorrect, nor has he ever been able to point out ant
    >>problems with the methodology or the sample. It's his old "rubbish,
    >>nonsense, etc." crap all over again. He never tires of it.

    >
    > Total baloney.


    Really? I just searched Google- no posts by you containing the facts
    mentioned above. It would seem that you are wrong again. What a surprise.







  14. #29
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:20:54
    -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

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


    >> CR uses a self-selected group from its subscriber base, whereas others
    >> (e.g.,
    >> JD Powers) use a more rigorous methodology.

    >
    >CR uses a randomly selected group from its subscriber base. ...


    Wrong again.

    >> Knock yourself out. But then we both know you won't, because you're just
    >> blowing nasty smoke, as usual.

    >
    >No John- you are the one who doesn't follow up in here. You avoid the facts
    >like a child avoids liver and onions- you haven't tasted it but know you
    >don't like it. You are the one that avoids answering the call for factual
    >backup to your claims- as soon as you are called on something, you disappear
    >from the thread.
    >
    >Face it- your antiquated knowledge of antiquated technology does you no good
    >here. An entire generation has graduated from high school since you were an
    >expert in anything timely. Too bad you couldn't keep up with the times and
    >not have to inflate your ego by posting a bunch of needless FAQ's and
    >uninformed and inaccurate claims to Usenet.


    I didn't think so, but thanks for the confirmation. Case closed.

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



  15. #30
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Is this true?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:25:10 -0700,
    "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:50:12
    >> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>It's just sour grapes by Navas, who is furious that his beloved carrier
    >>>consistently does so poorly. He has no data to indicate that any of the
    >>>surveys are incorrect, nor has he ever been able to point out ant
    >>>problems with the methodology or the sample. It's his old "rubbish,
    >>>nonsense, etc." crap all over again. He never tires of it.

    >>
    >> Total baloney.

    >
    >Really? I just searched Google- no posts by you containing the facts
    >mentioned above. It would seem that you are wrong again. ...


    Actually that you don't know how to use Google. Pity.

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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast