JD Power Report on Call Quality

SMS wrote:
> I don't know what it's attributable to. At first I thought that maybe
> Cingular still had a lot of customers on the older TDMA/AMPS system
> (from AT&T) or from Cingular themselves in some areas), but I later saw
> that Cingular's statement that 95% of their voice traffic is now on GSM
> (but not necessarily 95% of their customers, at the end of 2005 it was
> 86% GSM).

As I posted some time ago, a Cingular spokesman said two years ago (?)
by 2005 (?) some per cent (95%?) of Texas calls (he used an acronym that
stood for collective number of airtime minutes) would be GSM.

At first glance, someone would think the whole state would be GSM by
that date, but in reality, he could have been referring to only the
Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio markets for those numbers.

---

› See More: JD Power Report on Call Quality

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:01:19
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Quick wrote:
>> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>>>> Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> You can't validly compare different technologies.
>>> John Navas refuted:
>>>> Of course you can.
>>> Total rubbish. Nonsense.
>>>
>>> CDMA suffers from cell breathing when the loading
>>> increases and the weaker/est callers get dropped. Not so
>>> for GSM/TDMA.

Correct.

>> GSM/TDMA doesn't "suffer" from that because they have
>> a fixed number of channels. You either get one or you don't.
>> So there are a number of constraints you would impose
>> while varying others that you are comparing/measuring
>> in order to do the comparison.
>
>This is correct. With GSM, if you move into the area of a cell that is
>at capacity, the call drops. This used to be a big problem on Cingular
>when they were 1900 Mhz, and they over-sold the network.

Not true.

>OTOH, if there
>was no channel available when you tried to initiate a call, then you got
>a "system busy, please try later" recording. With CDMA, the voice
>quality is degraded as the cell becomes overloaded, but the call doesn't
>drop.

Which is of little value when the call quality is unusable.

>I think that if I was in a fixed position, then maybe waiting for a GSM
>channel would be preferable to degraded voice quality.

Indeed.

>However when
>you're moving from cell to cell, you probably would prefer degraded
>voice quality over having the call drop. In reality, neither are real
>issues anymore, except in isolated situations.

That is true. (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

--
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 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:12:34
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Wonder what year this is for because a few years ago the Old Can you
>> hear me now has been replaced.... I had plans that were awful in call
>> quality. Now I have had Verizon for many years I do wonder how the
>> rest of the companies are for my particular area and the areas I go
>
>2005.
>
>Of course in most areas of the country the differences weren't that big,
> but in my area (west) there was a pretty big difference.
>
>I don't know what it's attributable to.

As I've explained several times, it's most likely due to mixing ENS GSM with
non-ENS GSM, single-band GSM, and D-AMPS ("TDMA").

>At first I thought that maybe
>Cingular still had a lot of customers on the older TDMA/AMPS system
>(from AT&T) or from Cingular themselves in some areas), but I later saw
>that Cingular's statement that 95% of their voice traffic is now on GSM
>(but not necessarily 95% of their customers,

Good scramble.

>at the end of 2005 it was
>86% GSM). In the west, it would be even higher, because unlike in many
>areas of the country, Cingular never had their own TDMA/AMPS network in
>the west, the only TDMA/AMPS customers they have are from AT&T.

Which is significant.

>If
>anything, the areas where Cingular used to have a TDMA/AMPS network,
>tended to be better scoring areas in call quality for Cingular.

You're missing the effect of the merger, non-ENS GSM, and single-band GSM.

--
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 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:56:47
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Actually, it was a random, statistically significant sample of all Cingular
>> users, as it was for all other carriers. Your dimwitted claims that they
>> should only worry about GSM data simply mirrors the third world attitude
>> exhibited by Cingular in dealing with their non-orange network customers.
>
>Cingular recently stated that 95% of their voice traffic is on the GSM
>network. The effect on the survey results of TDMA is negligible, if it
>has any effect at all.

Patently untrue.

--
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 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:24:06
GMT, Michael Wise <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:53:36
>> GMT, Michael Wise <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >You know that better than anybody else...isn't that right Mr. Navas?
>> >> >After all, its why you never bothered responding to the facts (with
>> >> >pics) I posted which clearly showed your little Corte Madera claim about
>> >> >VZW coverage to be BS.
>> >>
>> >> Dream on.
>> >
>> >Is that the best response you can muster up to my field report complete
>> >with photographs of my VZW phone's signal strength all around San
>> >Clemente Park in Corte Madera?
>> >
>> >Surely you haven't forgotten your public claims of VZW having no or poor
>> >signal in that area?
>>
>> That's not what I wrote, which actually is:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...795786db?dmode
>> =source&hl=en
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...94b68277?dmode
>> =source&hl=en
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...188b2074?dmode
>> =source&hl=en
>> Kindly stick to what I actually write, rather than make up straw men for the
>> sake of pointless argument.
>
>Kindly read your own words, starting with the last of the three posts
>you cited:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...c2ebc188b2074?
>dmode=source&hl=en
>
>You said: "Again, *house* near San Clemente Park. The Verizon phone
>works (poorly), but not inside. Cingular works inside as well as
>outside. Going outside to make and take calls isn't a reasonable
>option."
>
>As I stated after that, there's no way for me to run tests inside of
>stranger's houses, but I could and did test outside throughout the
>entire residential area surrounding San Clemente Park to verify your
>claim of a VZW phone working "poorly" in that area.
>
>My tests (which I included photos for proof) showed that at no location
>in any of over a dozen points in the entire neighborhood around San
>Clemente Park did my VZW phone perform "poorly."
>
>Curiously, you dropped completely out of the discussion once I presented
>the data...even when asked several times to comment on it. Now, weeks
>later, you try to rewrite history.

Wrong on all counts.

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

Scott wrote:

> Actually, it was a random, statistically significant sample of all Cingular
> users, as it was for all other carriers. Your dimwitted claims that they
> should only worry about GSM data simply mirrors the third world attitude
> exhibited by Cingular in dealing with their non-orange network customers.

It's rather amusing what Cingular did to try and counter the J.D. Power
and Consumer Reports surveys, with their "fewest dropped calls" claims.

Great press release. No data of course, just a bunch of Cingular
executives praising themselves. In the words of the late Johnny Carson,
"funny stuff."

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

>
> Wrong on all counts.
>

Actually, he is right on all counts. You got caught in a big lie. Your
previously tarnished reputation in this group is now beyond repair. You
have been shown to be the uneducated troll that you truly are.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:56:47
> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, it was a random, statistically significant sample of all
>>> Cingular
>>> users, as it was for all other carriers. Your dimwitted claims that
>>> they
>>> should only worry about GSM data simply mirrors the third world attitude
>>> exhibited by Cingular in dealing with their non-orange network
>>> customers.
>>
>>Cingular recently stated that 95% of their voice traffic is on the GSM
>>network. The effect on the survey results of TDMA is negligible, if it
>>has any effect at all.
>
> Patently untrue.
>

See the quotes directly from Cingular in other areas of this thread- you'll
see that Steve's comments are right on the money. Of course, I see that you
are avoiding those direct quotes at all costs. However, feel free to post
verifiable facts to counter the claim, if you have any. Of course, asking
you to provide facts is ridiculous- you never do and you never accept facts
posted by others that counter your silly little agenda.

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

>
> As I've explained several times, it's most likely due to mixing ENS GSM
> with
> non-ENS GSM, single-band GSM, and D-AMPS ("TDMA").

So- it is a random sample of all Cingular customers. That would make the
sample statistically significant.

>
>>At first I thought that maybe
>>Cingular still had a lot of customers on the older TDMA/AMPS system
>>(from AT&T) or from Cingular themselves in some areas), but I later saw
>>that Cingular's statement that 95% of their voice traffic is now on GSM
>>(but not necessarily 95% of their customers,
>
> Good scramble.

The only thing scrambled here is what is left of that peabrain of yours.

>
>>at the end of 2005 it was
>>86% GSM). In the west, it would be even higher, because unlike in many
>>areas of the country, Cingular never had their own TDMA/AMPS network in
>>the west, the only TDMA/AMPS customers they have are from AT&T.
>
> Which is significant.

No it's not.

>
>>If
>>anything, the areas where Cingular used to have a TDMA/AMPS network,
>>tended to be better scoring areas in call quality for Cingular.
>
> You're missing the effect of the merger, non-ENS GSM, and single-band GSM.
>

Sorry- missing the facts is your job, John.

Scott wrote:

>>> at the end of 2005 it was
>>> 86% GSM). In the west, it would be even higher, because unlike in many
>>> areas of the country, Cingular never had their own TDMA/AMPS network in
>>> the west, the only TDMA/AMPS customers they have are from AT&T.
>> Which is significant.
>
> No it's not.

Remember to distinguish between what Cingular said about the percentage
of calls, and the number of remaining TDMA customers. 95% of calls on
GSM doesn't mean 95% of customers on GSM, since the TDMA holdouts are
those with the low-cost, low-peak minute plans. But the 95% number is
useful because it means that any effect of TDMA/AMPS on the call quality
ratings (one way or another) is negligible.

It's also a mistake to automatically assume that TDMA/AMPS will cause
the call quality to decline, in reality it probably has the opposite
effect. Look at the Cingular areas where both Cingular and AT&T had TDMA
networks, versus the areas where Cingular never had a TDMA network. In
the west, where Cingular was always GSM, and hence there are less
remaining TDMA customers on the new combined network, Cingular had their
worst call quality numbers.

In any case, the numbers speak for themselves, there is no way to
rationalize the results as some are attempting.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Mar 2006
07:32:57 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> As I've explained several times, it's most likely due to mixing ENS GSM
>> with non-ENS GSM, single-band GSM, and D-AMPS ("TDMA").
>
>So- it is a random sample of all Cingular customers. That would make the
>sample statistically significant.

You apparently don't understand statistics. The issue of significance (which
can only be determined mathematically) is different from the issue of a
non-uniform universe. For example, the mean number of breasts per person
(roughly one) is an equally meaningless statistic.

--
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, 28 Mar 2006 07:57:38
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>>>> at the end of 2005 it was
>>>> 86% GSM). In the west, it would be even higher, because unlike in many
>>>> areas of the country, Cingular never had their own TDMA/AMPS network in
>>>> the west, the only TDMA/AMPS customers they have are from AT&T.
>>> Which is significant.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
>Remember to distinguish between what Cingular said about the percentage
>of calls, and the number of remaining TDMA customers. 95% of calls on
>GSM doesn't mean 95% of customers on GSM, since the TDMA holdouts are
>those with the low-cost, low-peak minute plans. But the 95% number is
>useful because it means that any effect of TDMA/AMPS on the call quality
>ratings (one way or another) is negligible.

Not true, as can be easily shown with mathematical examples.

>It's also a mistake to automatically assume that TDMA/AMPS will cause
>the call quality to decline, in reality it probably has the opposite
>effect.

Again, not true, because:
1. D-AMPS ("TDMA") is being migrated to GSM, resulting in degraded service.
2. AMPS call quality is substantially inferior to digital call quality.

>Look at the Cingular areas where both Cingular and AT&T had TDMA
>networks, versus the areas where Cingular never had a TDMA network. In
>the west, where Cingular was always GSM, and hence there are less
>remaining TDMA customers on the new combined network, Cingular had their
>worst call quality numbers.

Again, not true, because Cingular acquired a large base of ATTWS D-AMPS
customers.

>In any case, the numbers speak for themselves, there is no way to
>rationalize the results as some are attempting.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:30:37 -0700,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:56:47
>> -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, it was a random, statistically significant sample of all
>>>> Cingular
>>>> users, as it was for all other carriers. Your dimwitted claims that
>>>> they
>>>> should only worry about GSM data simply mirrors the third world attitude
>>>> exhibited by Cingular in dealing with their non-orange network
>>>> customers.
>>>
>>>Cingular recently stated that 95% of their voice traffic is on the GSM
>>>network. The effect on the survey results of TDMA is negligible, if it
>>>has any effect at all.
>>
>> Patently untrue.
>
>See the quotes directly from Cingular in other areas of this thread- you'll
>see that Steve's comments are right on the money. [SNIP usual nasty comments]

My "untrue" was directed at his contention, not the GSM data, as was clear to
anyone not working as hard at being childish as you are.

Steve misstates and misuses this data, just as he does other data, citing the
95% number as indicative of the percentage of GSM subscribers. In fact that
percentage is readily available from the same source as the 95% number
<http://cingular.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=1435>:

During the fourth quarter of 2005, 95 percent of minutes were carried on
Cingular's GSM network and 86 percent of the company's subscriber base was
GSM-equipped.

That percentage is of course considerably different, but it doesn't suit
Steve's personal agenda/vendetta.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

"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 Mar 2006
> 07:32:57 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> As I've explained several times, it's most likely due to mixing ENS GSM
>>> with non-ENS GSM, single-band GSM, and D-AMPS ("TDMA").
>>
>>So- it is a random sample of all Cingular customers. That would make the
>>sample statistically significant.
>
> You apparently don't understand statistics. The issue of significance
> (which
> can only be determined mathematically) is different from the issue of a
> non-uniform universe. For example, the mean number of breasts per person
> (roughly one) is an equally meaningless statistic.
>
I'd be willing to put my statistical knowledge up against you any time,
Novice. Hint- mine wasn't learned on Google as yours was.

Stop trying to deflect- you got caught in yet another instance where you
have minimal knowledge, none of it practical.

> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
> -Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

Obviously Mark Twain never met you.