What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?

Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Part of the reason Cingular does so poorly in terms of all the surveys
>>> regarding coverage is because of the lack of ability to use all the AMPS
>>> networks in the country.
>> Nonsense.
>>
>
> Perfect- now you can explain why they perform so poorly in the surveys.
> After all, you have shot down this chain of logic. If you believe this not
> to be the reason, tell us what the reason is.
>
> Of course, we will never see an answer to the request.

LOL, it's either their poor digital coverage or their lack of AMPS
coverage (or both).

Of course Navas denies that any of the independent surveys are accurate,
so the whole premise is wrong to begin with.

---

› See More: What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?

In article <[email protected]>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
> >
> >"Painful lesson of GAIT"?
> >
> >GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.
>
> Only if you ignore cost and market penetration. GAIT was actually a
> market flop with consumers, and a large expense and hassle for carriers.
>
Part of the reason the GAIT phones didn't do any better was because the
choices of phones were so poor. The small do-everything models had just
started coming out and even people that did understand what GAIT did
still chose the models with the bells and whistles.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:44:07 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Part of the reason Cingular does so poorly in terms of all the surveys
>>>> regarding coverage is because of the lack of ability to use all the AMPS
>>>> networks in the country.

>>> Nonsense.

>> Perfect- now you can explain why they perform so poorly in the surveys.

In fact surveys show relatively little difference between carriers,
probably close to or even below the margin of error.

>> After all, you have shot down this chain of logic. If you believe this not
>> to be the reason, tell us what the reason is.
>>
>> Of course, we will never see an answer to the request.

Been there; done that. As you know

>LOL, it's either their poor digital coverage or their lack of AMPS
>coverage (or both).

Actually neither.

>Of course Navas denies that any of the independent surveys are accurate,
>so the whole premise is wrong to begin with.

What I've actually said (as you know) is that no valid conclusion can be
drawn on Cingular due to lumping different technologies together
(D-AMPS, 1900-only GSM, standard dual-band GSM, and GSM with ENS).
I know from my own experience that ENS and free dual-network roaming
with GSM is quite a bit superior to the other things being lumped in
with it. Sprint likewise, due to lumping together iDEN, CDMA2000 and
AMPS. Even Verizon is invalid, due to lumping together CDMA2000 and
AMPS. And to be clear, that simply means that no meaningful comparisons
can be drawn because it's simply not possible to narrow the results down
to specifically what a given person would be using. It matters not what
the average of (say) iDEN and CDMA2000 might be if I'm going to be using
either iDEN or CDMA2000 (not both).

Bottom line: "Much ado about nothing."

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

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:49:58 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com says...
>> >
>> >"Painful lesson of GAIT"?
>> >
>> >GAIT was a "win -- win" for both carriers and customers.
>>
>> Only if you ignore cost and market penetration. GAIT was actually a
>> market flop with consumers, and a large expense and hassle for carriers.
>>
>Part of the reason the GAIT phones didn't do any better was because the
>choices of phones were so poor. The small do-everything models had just
>started coming out and even people that did understand what GAIT did
>still chose the models with the bells and whistles.

Same issue with trying to bring out a few AMPS enabled phones.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:44:07 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> Part of the reason Cingular does so poorly in terms of all the surveys
>>>>> regarding coverage is because of the lack of ability to use all the
>>>>> AMPS
>>>>> networks in the country.
>
>>>> Nonsense.
>
>>> Perfect- now you can explain why they perform so poorly in the surveys.
>
> In fact surveys show relatively little difference between carriers,
> probably close to or even below the margin of error.

Totally non-responsive. I didn't ask about any differences in the numbers.
Cingular is always at the bottom of network surveys- why is that? The
question is not terribly difficult to comprehend, and yet you have such a
problem answering it. You have waved away any explanation givem here. Tell
us why they always take the bottom spot in network surveys.


>
>>> After all, you have shot down this chain of logic. If you believe this
>>> not
>>> to be the reason, tell us what the reason is.
>>>
>>> Of course, we will never see an answer to the request.
>
> Been there; done that. As you know

I know no such thing. You made a statement claiming that information was
not correct. I asked that you supply us with the correct data. You have
not done so.

>
>>LOL, it's either their poor digital coverage or their lack of AMPS
>>coverage (or both).
>
> Actually neither.

Then what is it?

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

>>>
>>Part of the reason the GAIT phones didn't do any better was because the
>>choices of phones were so poor. The small do-everything models had just
>>started coming out and even people that did understand what GAIT did
>>still chose the models with the bells and whistles.
>
> Same issue with trying to bring out a few AMPS enabled phones.
>

And yet CDMA/AMPS has been a success for a number of carriers. None of the
technological problems that GAIT had and more of a willingness by carriers
and handset makers to support the technology. Does this point the inherent
technological, philosophical or economical shortcomings of the companies
that could not make GAIT succeed?