THe winner with the fewest dropped calls is.....

....not Cingular:

http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44

"Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
reliable network. "


Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
report?

---

› See More: THe winner with the fewest dropped calls is.....

Scott wrote:
> ...not Cingular:
>
> http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44
>
> "Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) – With all major wireless carriers
> claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
> provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the scale.
> Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
> January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
> Cingular’s legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped calls,
> nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
> reliable network. "

I think that the key issue here is that the number of dropped calls is
not a metric that indicates which network is the best.

> Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
> report?

Who cares?

At 22 Feb 2007 21:22:12 -0700 SMS wrote:

> I think that the key issue here is that the number of dropped calls is
> not a metric that indicates which network is the best.

Depends what you use your phone for. My phone is primarily used for
business calls in a few fixed locations in urban/suburban Denver. Not
dropping a customer's call mid-conversation is FAR more important to me
than having seamless coverage in, say, Rocky Mountain National Park.

My "metrics" for the best network fr my needs are call clarity and
reliability. Dropped calls, poor audio, or overloaded towers sendng my
calls straight to voicemail without my phone ringing are unacceptable
even if I have coverage "everywhere."

"Bucky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 22, 7:44 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...not Cingular:
>
> I'll attest to that. I used to have AT&T TDMA, and almost never had a
> dropped call. Cingular GSM I get dropped calls occasionally. And
> choppy calls frequently.
>

My experiences exactly.
Old ATT/Suncom never a dropped call and excellent clarity. After switch to
Cingular (3 different handsets) now get some dropped calls and constant
complaints from party at other end that I sound all 'choppy'. I have only
stayed with them due to the carry over of my old SunCom UnPlan. The contract
expires in a month and unless they are willing to extend the 'UnPlan' I will
most likely go elsewhere.

T-mobile has fewer dropped calls then everyone but Verizon. And they are not
far behind Verizon.


"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ...not Cingular:
>
> http://www.mindwireless.com/index.ph...cid=4&subid=44
>
> "Houston, TX (February 21, 2007) - With all major wireless carriers
> claiming to offer the fewest dropped calls, wireless management services
> provider mindWireless used its vast database of call data to tip the
> scale.
> Using a sample of more than 80 million calls placed and received between
> January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, mindWireless found Sprint, followed by
> Cingular's legacy AT&T Wireless to have the fewest number of dropped
> calls,
> nearly 50 percent behind Verizon, the carrier claiming the best, most
> reliable network. "
>
>
> Who's betting on the tactic Navas is going to use to try and discredit the
> report?

xPosTech wrote:

> What if the called party drops the call (and I call back)? Does that
> count against my carrier?

No, but presumably that happens at about the same rate across all the
carriers so it balances out. Same as when you forget to tell the person
on the other end something and call right back again. It would show up
as a dropped call, but since this would happen on all carriers it
cancels out.

> It's probably the closest we can get, but it's not using true data.

Alas, as with many surveys and studies, you measure what's possible to
measure, and draw reasonable conclusions.

The problem with this metric is that it ignores the fact that with some
carriers, i.e. Verizon, you're going to have much wider coverage, but in
some cases the edges of the coverage are going to be marginal. So you're
able to make calls in areas where Cingular and T-Mobile users can't, but
the likelihood of it dropping and having to place it again is higher
than normal.

For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
AMPS signal. So a dropped call might be preferable to not being able to
make a call at all. It's extremely rare to find an area that has GSM
coverage but no CDMA coverage, and there is probably almost nowhere that
you'd have GSM and not have at least AMPS.

xPosTech wrote:

> What if the called party drops the call (and I call back)? Does that
count against my carrier?

No, but presumably that happens at about the same rate across all the
carriers so it balances out. Same as when you forget to tell the person
on the other end something and call right back again. It would show up
as a dropped call, but since this would happen on all carriers it
cancels out.

> It's probably the closest we can get, but it's not using true data.

Alas, as with many surveys and studies, you measure what's possible to
measure, and draw reasonable conclusions.

The problem with this metric is that it ignores the fact that with some
carriers, i.e. Verizon, you're going to have much wider coverage, but in
some cases the edges of the coverage are going to be marginal. So you're
able to make calls in areas where Cingular and T-Mobile users can't, but
the likelihood of it dropping and having to place it again is higher
than normal.

For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
AMPS signal. So a dropped call might be preferable to not being able to
make a call at all. It's extremely rare to find an area that has GSM
coverage but no CDMA coverage, and there is probably almost nowhere that
you'd have GSM and not have at least AMPS.


[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]

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

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, there are vast
>>areas with no GSM coverage at all, where you can get at least a Verizon
>>AMPS signal. ...
>
> Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
> Verizon's own coverage data.
>

Nice try, Skippy- Verizon data would not address the lack of GSM in the
area.

At 06 Mar 2007 00:40:45 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:

> Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
> Verizon's own coverage data.

"Proved?" That takes the huge leap of faith that the Verizon maps are
accurate. Regardless of the accuracy, they also lack the detail level of
Cingular's maps, making direct comparisons between the two carriers
difficult.

Also, Verizon's site shows different maps for different rate plans .
There seemed to be plenty of AMPS coverage on the NSR plans, as well as
some on AC I.

DTC wrote:
> xPosTech wrote:
>> And how often does the called party call back instead? And the
>> harassing ex call back when you hang up on her?
>
> Good point...never even thought of that!

It would all cancel out when comparing carriers, unless harassing exes
prefer one carrier over another.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 00:40:45 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:27 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>> Not true, as I proved in my previous posting on this myth of yours using
>> Verizon's own coverage data.
>
> "Proved?" That takes the huge leap of faith that the Verizon maps are
> accurate. Regardless of the accuracy, they also lack the detail level of
> Cingular's maps, making direct comparisons between the two carriers
> difficult.
>
> Also, Verizon's site shows different maps for different rate plans .
> There seemed to be plenty of AMPS coverage on the NSR plans, as well as
> some on AC I.

LOL, Navas's definition of "proof" is certainly amusing. Don't forget
his "proof" of extended range GSM.

However you did point out a major issue with Verizon, in that
non-Verizon AMPS coverage is very limited for subscribers that are not
on AC1 or NSR, two plans that new subscribers can't get.

When Verizon accidentally (or accidentally on-purpose) moved me to AC2
for a while, they acknowledged the AMPS advantages of AC1 when they
switched me back. What prompted AC2 with no off-extended-network roaming
was that subscribers were complaining about roaming charges on AC1.
Personally I'm perfectly happy to pay roaming charges when the
alternative is no coverage other than 911 coverage.

There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
coverage replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital
will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area, and
> it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital coverage
> replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital will cover
> the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.

Can one still get new AMPS service? It's been a long time since I dumped my
bag phone.

jeremy wrote:

> Can one still get new AMPS service? It's been a long time since I dumped my
> bag phone.

You can't get AMPS-only service from Verizon. It's still available from
some rural carriers, especially up in Alaska.

At 06 Mar 2007 16:36:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> AMPS almost certainly will go off very rapidly after sunset -- carriers
> are eager to phase out the costly AMPS coverage and redeploy the
> spectrum into profitable digital coverage, as evidenced by both their
> actions and their words.


I sill take issue with the concept of "costly AMPS coverage." Taking low-
usage rural towers in consideration for the moment, how is leaving
working AMPS equipment in place to rot more "costly" than replacing it
with additional unneeded digital capacity?

Sure, removing any traces of AMPS in urban/suburban areas MIGHT make
sense for increasing capacity (but even then, not much- most
urban/suburban installations are down to one or two channels of AMPS
anyway- digital can get what, 3 or 4 calls per channel instead of one?
So shutting off the last two AMPS channels adds a 6 call capacity? "Wow!
Let's pay the techs time and half and double-shift them all to rip all
of this obsolete stuff out- it's killing us!")

Realistically, rural AMPS equipment will likely be phased out as it dies
of natural causes and not before. There is no real cost benefit to
rolling out a fleet of trucks and technicians to tear down the AMPS
network just because the Feds say you're allowed to.

AMPS equipment will be like the 5-1/4" floppy drives sitting in stacks of
older computers in businesses nationwide. No one uses them, they
aren't hurting anyone, and we're certainly not going to pay anyone to
remove them unless they're already servicing the equipment for a more
important reason anyway... ;-)

At 06 Mar 2007 08:30:23 -0800 SMS wrote:

> There is still a great deal of AMPS coverage in the greater Bay Area,
> and it will remain on even after the FCC sunset date until digital
> coverage replaces it, though unfortunately there is no way that digital
> will cover the vast open areas that AMPS currently covers.

Why do you think that? I understand that the distance limitation of GSM
makes overlay a bit of a challenge, but why would CDMA overlay be
difficult? Even in the rural midwest, where flat terrain and low usage
are ideal for AMPS, I've found very few areas with AMPS-only service,
although I've USED AMPS due to technology incompatiblities (i.e. roaming
on Verizon or Alltel AMPS with a TDMA phone, etc.) but I believe we've
reached a point where a dual-band 800/1900 CDMA phone has 99% of the
coverage of a tri-mode, (certainly in POPs if not in actual geography.)

It's not like all of these rural carriers with AMPS service are still
selling Nokia 100s and Motorola MicroTACs to their customers. They've
all migrated to digital and overlaid substantially portions of their
networks. Their AMPS coverage is for roamers and their older "bagphone"
users.