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
> 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.

Yet you have no proof. That would make it your opinion against recorded
fact. Thanks for the confirmation.

>
>>> 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.
>

Don't think so? Willing to put up with the humiliation associated with
simply going back two months to prove it? I didn't think so.

---

› See More: 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
> 18:25:10 -0700,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>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.
>

I'll take that to be confirmation that you've realized the error of your
ways, as it is the closest thing to a retraction or admission of error you
are capable of. Pity.

You have no facts and your self-image is based on something far removed from
reality.

"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.

ROTFLOL. John, you are hardly one to talk about one's agenda, considering
how much you pump Cingular. No matter what the numbers say, that doesn't
make Jeremy's comments wrong. Those are his experiences in dealing with
carriers, coverage in his area, etc.

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.
>
> ROTFLOL. John, you are hardly one to talk about one's agenda, considering
> how much you pump Cingular. No matter what the numbers say, that doesn't
> make Jeremy's comments wrong. Those are his experiences in dealing with
> carriers, coverage in his area, etc.
>
> Bob
>

Do I have an agenda? Geez, all this time I thought I was just posting my
personal opinions! How can I--a nobody--presume to have an agenda to hurt
Cingular?

All I can say, from firsthand experience, is that I was pissed with Cingular
and have been extremely delighted with Sprint. I really can't understand
why Sprint has developed a bad reputation regarding its CSRs. In my
experience, Cingular reps were the jerks, and Sprint reps have been easy to
deal with.

Go figure . . .

Scott wrote:

> And still the highest of the national carriers.

T-Mobile has higher churn.

For 4Q2005:

Churn
-----------
Verizon: 1.2
Sprint: 2.1
Cingular: 2.1
T-Mobile: 2.3

Remember, this is _monthly_ churn, not quarterly churn. Extrapolated for
12 months, Verizon loses 14.4% of their existing customers, Sprint and
Cingular lose 25.2%, and T-Mobile loses 27.6%. This always seems
incredible to me that any business loses more than 25% of their
customers each year.

ARPU
----
Verizon: $49
Sprint: $63
Cingular: $48
T-Mobile: $52

Net Additions
-------------
Verizon: 2 million
Sprint: 1.4 million
Cingular: 1.8 million
T-Mobile: 1.4 million

T-Mobile clearly has a winning formula. They have a higher ARPU than
Verizon or Cingular, and a higher rate of net additions (in relation to
their subscriber base), despite having the highest churn, and the
poorest network.

T-Mobile is thought of as the low-price leader, but their ARPU is higher
than Verizon or Cingular.

Sprint's ARPU is on a relatively rapid decline, it's only so high
because of the effect of the high-value Nextel subscribers.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 07 Mar 2006
06:26:34 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> SinghaLvr <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of the American automakers prior to the influx of Japanese cars in
>> the 70s. They were happy with Churn because when the lost someone they got
>> someone new from another manufacturer. This worked well until the Japanese
>> showed up and EVERYONE left for them.
>>
>> In the end the American carmakers learned to build better cars.
>
>Funny thing--so did the Japanese.
>
>In the end, did the American manufacturers learn to close the gap? No.
>Do they even acknowledge a gap? Sadly and even worse, no.

Actually they did both acknowledge and close the gap.

<http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005069>:

J.D. Power and Associates Reports:
Toyota Motor Corporation, General Motors Corporation Garner Most Awards in
2005 Initial Quality Study

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.,: 18 May 2005 -- Toyota Motor Corporation and
General Motors Corporation, the two largest automobile manufacturers
in the world, capture 15 of the 18 top model segment awards,
according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2005 Initial Quality
StudySM (IQS) released today.

...

General Motors earns five top model segment awards, including those
for the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx (Entry Midsize Car), Buick
Century (Premium Midsize Car) and Chevrolet Suburban (Full-Size SUV).

"The 2005 IQS results contain some genuinely good news for General
Motors," said Chance Parker, executive director of product and
research analysis at J.D. Power and Associates. "The improvements of
the quality of several models and at their North American plants are
both very positive signs."

[MORE]

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

> General Motors earns five top model segment awards, including those
> for the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx (Entry Midsize Car), Buick
> Century (Premium Midsize Car) and Chevrolet Suburban (Full-Size SUV).
>
> "The 2005 IQS results contain some genuinely good news for General
> Motors," said Chance Parker, executive director of product and
> research analysis at J.D. Power and Associates. "The improvements of
> the quality of several models and at their North American plants are
> both very positive signs."


According to consumers reports not one American car made it in the top ten
on their reports on the following categories:

Sedan, less than$20,000 Sedan, $20,000-$30,000 Sedan, $30,000-$40,000
Luxury sedan SUV, less than $30,000 SUV, more than $30,000 Pickup truck
Minivan Green car Fun to drive

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 07 Mar
> 2006
> 06:26:34 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> SinghaLvr <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Reminds me of the American automakers prior to the influx of Japanese
>>> cars in
>>> the 70s. They were happy with Churn because when the lost someone they
>>> got
>>> someone new from another manufacturer. This worked well until the
>>> Japanese
>>> showed up and EVERYONE left for them.
>>>
>>> In the end the American carmakers learned to build better cars.
>>
>>Funny thing--so did the Japanese.
>>
>>In the end, did the American manufacturers learn to close the gap? No.
>>Do they even acknowledge a gap? Sadly and even worse, no.
>
> Actually they did both acknowledge and close the gap.
>
> <http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005069>:
>
> J.D. Power and Associates Reports:
> Toyota Motor Corporation, General Motors Corporation Garner Most Awards
> in
> 2005 Initial Quality Study
>
> WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.,: 18 May 2005 -- Toyota Motor Corporation and
> General Motors Corporation, the two largest automobile manufacturers
> in the world, capture 15 of the 18 top model segment awards,
> according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2005 Initial Quality
> StudySM (IQS) released today.
>
> ...
>
> General Motors earns five top model segment awards, including those
> for the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx (Entry Midsize Car), Buick
> Century (Premium Midsize Car) and Chevrolet Suburban (Full-Size SUV).
>
> "The 2005 IQS results contain some genuinely good news for General
> Motors," said Chance Parker, executive director of product and
> research analysis at J.D. Power and Associates. "The improvements of
> the quality of several models and at their North American plants are
> both very positive signs."
>
> [MORE]
>

A lot of good that does. I'm willing to bet that GM declares bankruptcy
within a year.

Of course, this is the Cingular model- claim to be the best and put yourself
out of business by not making a decent profit.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:35:19
GMT, "thunder" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> General Motors earns five top model segment awards, including those
>> for the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx (Entry Midsize Car), Buick
>> Century (Premium Midsize Car) and Chevrolet Suburban (Full-Size SUV).
>>
>> "The 2005 IQS results contain some genuinely good news for General
>> Motors," said Chance Parker, executive director of product and
>> research analysis at J.D. Power and Associates. "The improvements of
>> the quality of several models and at their North American plants are
>> both very positive signs."
>
>According to consumers reports not one American car made it in the top ten
>on their reports on the following categories:
>
>Sedan, less than$20,000 Sedan, $20,000-$30,000 Sedan, $30,000-$40,000
>Luxury sedan SUV, less than $30,000 SUV, more than $30,000 Pickup truck
>Minivan Green car Fun to drive

Sadly, that says more about Consumer Reports than about Detroit.

--
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 Tue, 7 Mar 2006 18:32:28
-0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> <http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005069>:
>>
>> J.D. Power and Associates Reports:
>> Toyota Motor Corporation, General Motors Corporation Garner Most Awards in
>> 2005 Initial Quality Study
>>
>> WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.,: 18 May 2005 -- Toyota Motor Corporation and
>> General Motors Corporation, the two largest automobile manufacturers
>> in the world, capture 15 of the 18 top model segment awards,
>> according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2005 Initial Quality
>> StudySM (IQS) released today.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> General Motors earns five top model segment awards, including those
>> for the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx (Entry Midsize Car), Buick
>> Century (Premium Midsize Car) and Chevrolet Suburban (Full-Size SUV).
>>
>> "The 2005 IQS results contain some genuinely good news for General
>> Motors," said Chance Parker, executive director of product and
>> research analysis at J.D. Power and Associates. "The improvements of
>> the quality of several models and at their North American plants are
>> both very positive signs."
>>
>> [MORE]
>
>A lot of good that does. I'm willing to bet that GM declares bankruptcy
>within a year.

I'll take that bet -- how much?

>Of course, this is the Cingular model- claim to be the best and put yourself
>out of business by not making a decent profit.

Wrong there too.

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

thunder wrote:

>> "The 2005 IQS results contain some genuinely good news for General
>> Motors," said Chance Parker, executive director of product and
>> research analysis at J.D. Power and Associates. "The improvements of
>> the quality of several models and at their North American plants are
>> both very positive signs."
>
>
> According to consumers reports not one American car made it in the top ten
> on their reports on the following categories:
>
> Sedan, less than$20,000 Sedan, $20,000-$30,000 Sedan, $30,000-$40,000
> Luxury sedan SUV, less than $30,000 SUV, more than $30,000 Pickup truck
> Minivan Green car Fun to drive.

One of the most misleading studies on vehicles is the J.D. Power Initial
Quality study. Realistically speaking, who really cares if their vehicle
is top-rated in initial quality? What really matters, in terms of
quality, is the long-term dependability.

Look at the J.D. Power Long term dependability results during the past
few years:

2005: "http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089"
2004: "http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2004055"
2003: "http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2003050"

Actually some U.S. nameplates have improved greatly.

It's also a mistake to lump all the Japanese brands together.
Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus always do well in terms of long term
dependability, but the other Japanese brands do poorly.

Where the U.S. often does poorly is in safety.

What's the only 2006 small car to be rated Good, in front, rear, and
side impact by the IIHS, which uses the much more stringent 40 mph front
offset crash test? The Honda Civic. For mid-size moderately priced, it's
the Subaru Legacy. For mid-size luxury, it's the Saab 9-3. For large
family cars it's the Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego, for small SUVs
it's the Subaru Forester (other categories had no vehicles that were
rated good in front, rear, and side).

Consumer Report's ratings are good for what they are, but they mainly
emphasize safety and reliability, two areas in which U.S. vehicles don't
generally excel. The best part of Consumer Reports, as it relates to
vehicles, are the surveys filled out by vehicle owners as to the
reliability of their vehicles. Just as with their wireless survey, they
are using a very large sample, and their methodology is excellent.

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:49:45
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>... The best part of Consumer Reports, as it relates to
>vehicles, are the surveys filled out by vehicle owners as to the
>reliability of their vehicles. Just as with their wireless survey, they
>are using a very large sample, and their methodology is excellent.

In fact, just the opposite -- self-selected sample from a non-representative
universe and crude methodology. You might as well poll liberal Democrats on
how well the military is performing in Iraq.

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

John Navas wrote:
> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>... The best part of Consumer Reports, as it relates to
>>vehicles, are the surveys filled out by vehicle owners as to the
>>reliability of their vehicles. Just as with their wireless survey, they
>>are using a very large sample, and their methodology is excellent.
>
> In fact, just the opposite -- self-selected sample from a non-representative
> universe and crude methodology. You might as well poll liberal Democrats on
> how well the military is performing in Iraq.

They do that regularly these days.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:02:25 -0600,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>... The best part of Consumer Reports, as it relates to
>>>vehicles, are the surveys filled out by vehicle owners as to the
>>>reliability of their vehicles. Just as with their wireless survey, they
>>>are using a very large sample, and their methodology is excellent.
>>
>> In fact, just the opposite -- self-selected sample from a non-representative
>> universe and crude methodology. You might as well poll liberal Democrats on
>> how well the military is performing in Iraq.
>
>They do that regularly these days.

And it's every bit as meaningful.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>According to consumers reports not one American car made it in the top ten
>>on their reports on the following categories:
>>
>>Sedan, less than$20,000 Sedan, $20,000-$30,000 Sedan, $30,000-$40,000
>>Luxury sedan SUV, less than $30,000 SUV, more than $30,000 Pickup truck
>>Minivan Green car Fun to drive
>
> Sadly, that says more about Consumer Reports than about Detroit.

Are you saying that Consumer Reports engineers deliberately
falsify the results of their tests so as to make US manufacturer's
vehicles look worse? Somehow I find that hard to believe.
Vehicles that tip over in accident avoidance maneuvers or have
excessive stopping distances are somewhat obvious.

--
John Richards