Is this true?

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 7 Mar 2006
> 18:32:28
> -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>
>>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.
>

Really? How big an advantage did Cingular have over Verizon in subscriber
numbers when their merger was completed? A few million, IIRC. They now are
less than 100k customers from being number two and could enter 2007 as
number three. Their poor financial performance in comparison to the
competition further proves the point that they are incapable of showing the
kind of success the rest of the industry enjoys. Sprint starts migrating to
a unified billing platform this summer- what decade is this on the Cingular
calendar?

Poor customer service, poor retention efforts, poor sales efforts, poor
financials, poor integration- there are public facts to support each of
these. Go ahead and show everybody where I am wrong.

---

› 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 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.
>
> --

And you don't know what you are talking about. What a surprise.

Scott wrote:

> Really? How big an advantage did Cingular have over Verizon in subscriber
> numbers when their merger was completed? A few million, IIRC. They now are
> less than 100k customers from being number two and could enter 2007 as
> number three. Their poor financial performance in comparison to the
> competition further proves the point that they are incapable of showing the
> kind of success the rest of the industry enjoys. Sprint starts migrating to
> a unified billing platform this summer- what decade is this on the Cingular
> calendar?

Cingular is still digesting AT&T Wireless, and the poor performance has
been affected by subscriber losses as former AT&T subscribers leave
because of the price increases imposed by Cingular.

It maybe a mistake to focus on their performance in the past few
quarters. They seem to intentionally be trying to shed the low ARPU
customers, which has negative effect on net subscriber additions. One
person here has been very vocal about this, but it's not just him that's
decided to leave for less expensive pastures.

Being #1 or #2 in terms of subscribers, when the difference is just a
few percent, is meaningless except for bragging rights. They've reduced
churn to 2.1%, and though this is still far, far higher than Verizon, at
least it's trending in the right direction.

John Richards wrote:
> "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.

Remember that one of the vehicles that CR was most upset about was the
Suzuki Samurai, a very Japanese vehicle.

Remember to separate the CR information into two categories. One is the
new car testing that they do, which while valuable, tends to concentrate
mostly on safety issues, with predicted reliability based on similar
models from earlier years.

The more interesting category, is the annual survey, where they tabulate
the results from more than 1 million surveys, that looks at serious
problems that the owner has had in the past year. Remember, they aren't
asking owners what car they think is the best, they're simply asking
what problems the owner has had with their specific car. That's a very
big sample size, even considering the many different makes and models of
vehicle. It's very similar to the wireless survey they do every year.
They break it down by geographic area and by carrier, with a
statistically very large sample size, with a very small margin of error.
Again, they're asking people to rate their own carrier, not asking
someone's opinion of which carrier is the best.

I think it's interesting when the CR engineers recommend a vehicle that
later turns out to do really poorly in terms of reliability. I had one
of those vehicles once!

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

In <2iLPf.5785$%[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Mar 2006
01:12:30 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"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?

Where/how do you get that from my statement? The actual problem is simply
that CU methodology and ratings reflect a particular agenda (also reflected in
its "safety" crusades) that isn't representative of the market as a whole.

>Somehow I find that hard to believe.
>Vehicles that tip over in accident avoidance maneuvers or have
>excessive stopping distances are somewhat obvious.

Those crusades, and the methods used to advance them, are controversial.

Since this has nothing to do with alt.cellular.*, let's get back on track.

--
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 Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:58:06
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Remember to separate the CR information into two categories. One is the
>new car testing that they do, which while valuable, tends to concentrate
>mostly on safety issues,

As perceived by CU. Both that perspective and the means used to advance it
are controversial.

>with predicted reliability based on similar
>models from earlier years.

Which is of course invalid, much like trying to predict future stock
performance from past results.

>The more interesting category, is the annual survey, where they tabulate
>the results from more than 1 million surveys, that looks at serious
>problems that the owner has had in the past year.

Actually just subjective questionnaires, filled out by a self-selected sample
of a specific population (CR subscribers) that isn't representative of the
market as a whole. It's a kind of self-fullfilling prophecy.

>Remember, they aren't
>asking owners what car they think is the best, they're simply asking
>what problems the owner has had with their specific car. That's a very
>big sample size, even considering the many different makes and models of
>vehicle.

It's actually pretty small for the less popular models.

>It's very similar to the wireless survey they do every year.

It's actually better than the wireless survey, which suffers from more serious
flaws (e.g., lumping D-AMPS and GSM together).

>They break it down by geographic area and by carrier, with a
>statistically very large sample size, with a very small margin of error.

Again, that simply isn't true -- the methodology isn't statistically valid for
the overall market for much the same reasons as its other surveys.

>Again, they're asking people to rate their own carrier, not asking
>someone's opinion of which carrier is the best.

There really is no such distinction. It's a largely subjective questionnaire.

More objective data is available, including safety and recall data compiled by
governmental and non-governmental organizations.

>I think it's interesting when the CR engineers recommend a vehicle that
>later turns out to do really poorly in terms of reliability. I had one
>of those vehicles once!

Not surprising, since the reliability methodology isn't valid, as noted above.

What's really interesting is that you don't see that as indicative of
fundamental methodology problems. But it's not surprising -- you consistently
praise things you think support your personal agenda (no matter how flawed,
and even when they don't really support it), and pan those that don't. What a
shock. Not.

--
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 Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:46:49
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Really? How big an advantage did Cingular have over Verizon in subscriber
>> numbers when their merger was completed? A few million, IIRC. They now are
>> less than 100k customers from being number two and could enter 2007 as
>> number three. Their poor financial performance in comparison to the
>> competition further proves the point that they are incapable of showing the
>> kind of success the rest of the industry enjoys. Sprint starts migrating to
>> a unified billing platform this summer- what decade is this on the Cingular
>> calendar?
>
>Cingular is still digesting AT&T Wireless, and the poor performance has
>been affected by subscriber losses as former AT&T subscribers leave
>because of the price increases imposed by Cingular.

Cingular has actually done well on retaining ATTWS customers -- churn is
*down*, not up.

>It maybe a mistake to focus on their performance in the past few
>quarters. ...

Because it contradicts your personal agenda. What a shock.

>Being #1 or #2 in terms of subscribers, when the difference is just a
>few percent, is meaningless except for bragging rights. ...

Yet you made a big deal of it when Verizon was ahead of Cingular. Situational
ethics. What a shock.

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

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I think it's interesting when the CR engineers recommend a vehicle that
> later turns out to do really poorly in terms of reliability. I had one
> of those vehicles once!

So did I. But new car performance and initial quality level don't
necessarily correspond with long term reliability. I can't fault CR
engineers for not having a magic crystal ball.

--
John Richards

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>I think it's interesting when the CR engineers recommend a vehicle that
>>later turns out to do really poorly in terms of reliability. I had one
>>of those vehicles once!
>
> Not surprising, since the reliability methodology isn't valid, as noted above.

You are clouding the issue by lumping CR's new car recommendations
with their long term reliability surveys. A specific new car is recommended
based on initial quality level, handling, performance, etc. The fact that
the water pump fails after 60K miles is difficult to predict, but those kinds
of problems are caught by the reliability surveys. The latter is useful
for consumers buying a used vehicle.

I don't use CR as my sole source of input when buying a new
vehicle, but it is useful as one data point.

--
John Richards

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Mar 2006
17:45:43 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>I think it's interesting when the CR engineers recommend a vehicle that
>>>later turns out to do really poorly in terms of reliability. I had one
>>>of those vehicles once!
>>
>> Not surprising, since the reliability methodology isn't valid, as noted above.
>
>You are clouding the issue by lumping CR's new car recommendations
>with their long term reliability surveys. A specific new car is recommended
>based on initial quality level, handling, performance, etc. The fact that
>the water pump fails after 60K miles is difficult to predict, but those kinds
>of problems are caught by the reliability surveys. The latter is useful
>for consumers buying a used vehicle.

Used, yes; new, no. That latter is the problem -- people tend to assume that
the reliability of past models is a good predictor of the reliability of
current models, but it really isn't.

>I don't use CR as my sole source of input when buying a new
>vehicle, but it is useful as one data point.

Sure, but I find it significantly less useful than other reviews and surveys.

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

John Richards wrote:

> So did I. But new car performance and initial quality level don't
> necessarily correspond with long term reliability. I can't fault CR
> engineers for not having a magic crystal ball.

True. They've improved since the experience I had, which was in the late
1970's. It was just amusing to see them gushing over the VW Rabbit, then
slowly, in the early 1980's start talking about all the reliability
issues with these cars. I think that they were trying to extrapolate
Rabbit reliability from Beetle reliability.

The Initial Quality Study is about the most worthless study done by J.D.
Power, because there is no correlation between initial quality and long
term dependability.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:13:56
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>The Initial Quality Study is about the most worthless study done by J.D.
>Power, because there is no correlation between initial quality and long
>term dependability.

It's actually perfectly valid for what it is. That measuring A doesn't tell
you much about B doesn't diminish the value of the information on A.

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

John Richards wrote:

> I don't use CR as my sole source of input when buying a new vehicle, but
> it is useful as one data point.

Yes, it is simply one source. The reliability data is very useful
because even as body styles change, the basic components of engine and
power train often don't change much, and CR notes when they do.

The reliability surveys catch a lot of design flaws that you might not
otherwise find. I.e. one GM vehicle I'm familiar with used a perfectly
good Delco alternator, but it was placed in a location where it was
exposed to high temperatures with poor venitlation. It was a constant
source of failure. You'd have been hard pressed to know about this
unless you either read Consumer Reports or Usenet.

Consumer Reports bashing is almost always sour grapes. Navas hates them
because of the annual Consumer Reports wireless survey, which
consistently rates Cingular poorly and Verizon well. The fact that the
CR uses a very large sample size, which means a low margin of error, and
they they use a well-proven and well-respected methodology, further
infuriates him.

In fact, if anything the CR methodology is too kind to poorer products
and services, because the survey only asks for the respondents to rate
the specific product or service they own or use--you can't rant about
crappy products and services that you had in the past but got rid of
(that's reserved for Usenet!). I suppose that you could claim that a
Toyota owner is less likely to report a blown engine than a GM owner, or
that a Verizon subscriber is less likely to complain about poor coverage
and dropped calls than a Cingular subscriber, but there is no evidence
that this is the case, and other surveys back up the Consumer Reports
surveys, with similar results.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:25:39
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Consumer Reports bashing is almost always sour grapes. Navas hates them
>because of the annual Consumer Reports wireless survey, which
>consistently rates Cingular poorly and Verizon well. The fact that the
>CR uses a very large sample size, which means a low margin of error, and
>they they use a well-proven and well-respected methodology, further
>infuriates him.
>
>In fact, if anything the CR methodology is too kind to poorer products
>and services, because the survey only asks for the respondents to rate
>the specific product or service they own or use--you can't rant about
>crappy products and services that you had in the past but got rid of
>(that's reserved for Usenet!). I suppose that you could claim that a
>Toyota owner is less likely to report a blown engine than a GM owner, or
>that a Verizon subscriber is less likely to complain about poor coverage
>and dropped calls than a Cingular subscriber, but there is no evidence
>that this is the case, and other surveys back up the Consumer Reports
>surveys, with similar results.

Nothing could be farther from the truth (as usual).

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

Tinman wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:59:50 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nothing could be farther from the truth (as usual).
>
> Translation: I have nothing to backup my unsubstantiated blather, so I'm
> resorting to one of my usual, yet lame, one-line replies.

I appreciate those types of lame replies, because they at least confirm
that what I wrote is accurate.