Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:47:42 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:11:24 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>>> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
>>>> Cingular/AT&T.
>>>
>>> On what planet?
>>
>>Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area), and
>>Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes, and
>>thus with extremely low margins of error.
>>
>>In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>>coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>>others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
>>
>>The markets I'm most familiar with are the SF Bay Area, New York City,
>>and Southern California. In all three, my experiences confirm what all
>>the expert surveys show.
>>
>>It actually goes beyond what all the surveys show though. The surveys
>>are of users in metro areas, and while they do by default include
>>coverage of users in their travels, where Verizon excels to an even
>>greater degree is in rural areas, even without AMPS included. When you
>>include AMPS coverage, which is still extensive in the non-urban areas,
>>the advantage is tremendous. Even when Verizon and AT&T turn off their
>>AMPS networks, rural carriers have indicated that they will leave their
>>AMPS networks in place for the foreseeable future.
>>
>>I always bring along a phone on Cingular/AT&T when I travel, just to
>>test the differences. Last year, in Oregon, far north California, the
>>Sierra Nevada, and Canada, the advantage of CDMA and AMPS was
>>significant. In many cases it was roaming onto other CDMA networks, and
>>occasionally AMPS, but in most cases it was native coverage. In short,
>>all the surveys and tests were confirmed.
>>
>>Where did you get the idea that Cingular/AT&T was anywhere near the
>>level of coverage of Verizon. Do you have any citations or references,
>>or are you pulling a Navas? I'd love to see some evidence to the
>>contrary. I'm not married to any carrier. The best Cingular could do was
>>the bogus "fewest dropped calls" so-called survey, where even the survey
>>company said that their interpretation of the results was incorrect.
>
>Pretty much everything there is wildly fabricated.

And not a single citation. "Hypocrisy, thy name is Usenet."

Troll on, Steven.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

>
> The only place Verizon excels compared to AT&T is in selling their
> crappy handsets: Verizon's equipment revenues were 34% higher than
> AT&T last quarter, this is the (sole) reason Verizon's overall revenue
> exceeded AT&T's by a bit. I can only guess at why this might be so,

Oh!!! I can answer that one!!! When we were verizon customers, we switched
handsets quite frequently. We had to. Selection was limited to (all crap)
when we signed up. New models came out that we hoped were not as crappy.
Can't tell much testing them in the store, so we bought more crap, hoping
that they'd be better than what we had. Damn. And of course, you can't
just buy any handset and use it on Verizon, as the phones are locked to
verizon and don't have the chip you can swap, like ATT/Cingular and
T-Mobile, for example.

So Verizon customers have to change handsets frequently, attempting to
finally find a handset that they like. They never will, as Verizon doesn't
offer anything close to good quality in handsets... just AVERAGE quality, at
best. I just checked the verizon wireless web site and they seem to be
offering dozens of models of exactly 3 makes:
LG (Goldstar)
Motorola
Samsung

Samsung is OK usually, but the other two are always (ALWAYS) crap...
especially Motorola, which is to be avoided at all costs, even if you have
to pay an early termination fee and switch providers!!!

I was so happy to ditch Verizon just so I could get a decent handset again.
We are now using various recent models of Nokia handsets. For people who
(eventually) realize that all that matters in a cellular handset is
reception, voice quality and battery life (in that order), you simply can't
beat Nokia. I've driven across several states (literally) on the same phone
call (without getting dropped even once) with a nokia handset. Yes, I said
several states. It doesn't MATTER what network you are on, you simply won't
be able to DO that with a non-nokia handset. Too bad about Verizon not
offering Nokia anything (did they ever?). -Dave

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>>> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
>>> Cingular/AT&T.
>>
>> On what planet?
>
> Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area), and
> Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes, and thus
> with extremely low margins of error.
>
> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in coverage
> in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three others. AT&T
> and Sprint were far, far behind.

I read the same report and laughed my ASS off!!!

CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable consumer
resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably HATE it.
-Dave

Dave wrote:
>
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dave wrote:
>>>> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
>>>> Cingular/AT&T.
>>>
>>> On what planet?
>>
>> Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area), and
>> Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes, and
>> thus with extremely low margins of error.
>>
>> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>> others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
>
> I read the same report and laughed my ASS off!!!
>
> CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable
> consumer resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably
> HATE it. -Dave

As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
newsgroups!).

Dave wrote:
>>
>> The only place Verizon excels compared to AT&T is in selling their
>> crappy handsets: Verizon's equipment revenues were 34% higher than
>> AT&T last quarter, this is the (sole) reason Verizon's overall revenue
>> exceeded AT&T's by a bit. I can only guess at why this might be so,
>
>
> Oh!!! I can answer that one!!! When we were verizon customers, we
> switched handsets quite frequently. We had to. Selection was limited
> to (all crap) when we signed up. New models came out that we hoped were
> not as crappy. Can't tell much testing them in the store, so we bought
> more crap, hoping that they'd be better than what we had. Damn. And of
> course, you can't just buy any handset and use it on Verizon, as the
> phones are locked to verizon and don't have the chip you can swap, like
> ATT/Cingular and T-Mobile, for example.
>
> So Verizon customers have to change handsets frequently, attempting to
> finally find a handset that they like. They never will, as Verizon
> doesn't offer anything close to good quality in handsets... just AVERAGE
> quality, at best. I just checked the verizon wireless web site and they
> seem to be offering dozens of models of exactly 3 makes:
> LG (Goldstar)
> Motorola
> Samsung
>
> Samsung is OK usually, but the other two are always (ALWAYS) crap...
> especially Motorola, which is to be avoided at all costs, even if you
> have to pay an early termination fee and switch providers!!!

Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray "brick"
about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I replaced
that ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served me well for
six years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to work and meet
my needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two to four years. I
know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend money to to replace a
working phone just because I CAN. Anyway, that's just Verizon's "hook"
to get me to sign a new contract. . . . I've spent more time WITHOUT a
contract, than with. . . . It doesn't do a thing for me!

When the old phone bites the dust or when a new phone will do something
I NEED and the old one won't, THEN I'll buy a new one. Each time I've
replaced a phone, it has been because the battery was starting to fail
and I couldn't see buying a replacement battery for an antique!

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:21:29 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Dave wrote:

>> CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable
>> consumer resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably
>> HATE it. -Dave
>
>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. ...

I don't even hold a candle to you in that department, Steven.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
> twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray "brick"
> about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I replaced
> that ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served me well for
> six years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to work and meet
> my needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two to four years. I
> know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend money to to replace a
> working phone just because I CAN. Anyway, that's just Verizon's "hook"
> to get me to sign a new contract. . . . I've spent more time WITHOUT a
> contract, than with. . . . It doesn't do a thing for me!

Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the UI.

That is because Sprint has the best coverage with Verizon a close second.

"Dennis Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2008-02-04, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I do find it ironic, however, that the carrier with "The Network" is the
>> only nationwide carrier without accurate street-level coverage maps
>> ontheir
>> website. (They've recently added "street-level" maps, but they are still
>> "yes/no" coverage maps with no attempt to discern between strong,
>> moderate,
>> weak, etc. like the other carriers do.)
>
> Would you call Sprint's maps "street-level coverage"? My house is in
> a coverage seam where all the carriers are crap. This shows up clearly
> as a several square block area of weak coverage on the T-Mobile and
> AT&T maps that I'm in the middle of, but on the Sprint map the whole
> city has excellent coverage (and Verizon says the whole county is
> covered).
>
> Dennis Ferguson

Now that's funny!

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:08:56 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>That is because Sprint has the best coverage with Verizon a close second.
>
>"Dennis Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 2008-02-04, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I do find it ironic, however, that the carrier with "The Network" is the
>>> only nationwide carrier without accurate street-level coverage maps
>>> ontheir
>>> website. (They've recently added "street-level" maps, but they are still
>>> "yes/no" coverage maps with no attempt to discern between strong,
>>> moderate,
>>> weak, etc. like the other carriers do.)
>>
>> Would you call Sprint's maps "street-level coverage"? My house is in
>> a coverage seam where all the carriers are crap. This shows up clearly
>> as a several square block area of weak coverage on the T-Mobile and
>> AT&T maps that I'm in the middle of, but on the Sprint map the whole
>> city has excellent coverage (and Verizon says the whole county is
>> covered).
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

>> Samsung is OK usually, but the other two are always (ALWAYS) crap...
>> especially Motorola, which is to be avoided at all costs, even if you
>> have to pay an early termination fee and switch providers!!!
>
> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
> twelve years and have been satisfied!

Anyone can get used to mediocrity. To be fair, motorola does put out a
decent handset from time to time. At best, these decent Motorola handsets
are not QUITE up to Nokia quality, but some come close. Too bad about the
other 999 ****ty handsets motorola foists off on the unsuspecting public for
every good one they produce. The last good motorola handset was a
T720/T730. Unfortunately, even THAT one got a bad rep, because the
instruction manual was WRONG. Battery life issues were caused by owners
IMPROPERLY charging the batteries because they did the right thing and READ
THE MANUAL.

Basically, the battery needed to be charged for at least 12 or 24 hours
(forget which) but the manual was vague enough to say something like "charge
until the indicator shows full"... which would happen in as little as 15
minutes. And then the memory effect killed the batteries quick. Thus you
had lots of Motorola owners complaining that they need to charge their
(FAIRLY NEW) batteries several times a day, when (if properly charged) they
would last several days.

But if you like Motorola, I am dead serious when I suggest that you would
probably LOVE Nokia. For starters, unless you are tone deaf, sound quality
will be about 1000% improved, just from switching from Motorola (anything)
to Nokia (anything). It will literally be like switching from a
tin-can-and-string type sound quality to a land-line-telephone-replacement
quality. Your reception will be at least 30% better with Nokia, assuming
the motorola and Nokia were compatible with the same network. This
translates to a lot less dropped calls and a lot less (what? WHAT?
WHAT!!!!?????!?!!) A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal bars,
calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!), calls do not
drop, and sound quality is superb. Then you think back and remember that in
the same area, you couldn't even connect a call with the motorola and the
quality difference is painfully clear. At best, motorola will never be
qualified to polish the boots of nokia. Nokia is what motorola would like
to be but (sadly) will never be.

In case anybody is wondering, I've had to carry many motorola handsets (no
choice, that's what various employers have given me, without asking or
caring about my input). In all cases, I've relied on my personal nokia (and
some other, but mostly nokia) brand handsets to bail me out when the
motorolas fell short. In some cases, the two handsets I was carrying were
on the same network. Motorola would often show no signal/no service, and
I'd be chatting on the nokia handset (off and on) all day in the same areas
where I couldn't connect ONE call with a motorola handset on the same
network and the same towers!!! And no, there was never anything wrong with
the motorola handsets. They were all working exactly as designed,
unfortunately. I say unfortunately as (in my opinion) they were ALL
defective, but the tech guys of various cell providers all disagreed with me
and refused to repair or replace the motorola handsets, even if I pointed
out that the nokia handset ON THEIR NETWORK worked where the motorola
didn't.... -Dave

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
>> twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray "brick"
>> about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I replaced that
>> ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served me well for six
>> years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to work and meet my
>> needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two to four years. I
>> know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend money to to replace a
>> working phone just because I CAN. Anyway, that's just Verizon's "hook"
>> to get me to sign a new contract. . . . I've spent more time WITHOUT a
>> contract, than with. . . . It doesn't do a thing for me!
>
> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the
> UI.

I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
improved it greatly. Unfortunately, the radio portion always has sucked,
and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if you've ever
used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you would quickly
realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas really does suck,
badly. -Dave

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote
>> Todd Allcock wrote

>>> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's
>>> TDMA areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built
>>> out (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get
>>> added to increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the
>>> system hasn't really changed _significantly_ in some time for the
>>> legacy 800MHz carriers.

>> The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
>> much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

> Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly comparable.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

GSM has a digital cliff that the other two technologys dont, and
that has a dramatic effect on range outside the built up areas.

>> For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
>> that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
>> GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but
>> you can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.

> Not true, as I've proven repeatedly in the past.

>>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out
>>> decades-old 800- MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell
>>> system on us T-Mo subscribers! ;-)

>> LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
>> neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile,
>> it was Cingular that was trying).

>> However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
>> coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the Bay Area.

> Again, not true.

>> The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
>> good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
>> Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
>> too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
>> spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.

> In fact doing quite well in this area.

>> I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says
>> about the quality of Bay Area coverage.

> Believe you instead?

>> Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they
>> were tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with
>> AT&T a distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.

> It said nothing of the kind.

> Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.

You in spades.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:33:07 -0500, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

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

>> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the
>> UI.
>
>I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
>improved it greatly.

True, although current handsets crash too much, and carrier customizing
can screw up the functionality, as in the case of the Cingular-branded
V3xx.
<http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola#Cingular-branded_V3xx>
<http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola#Modding_Cingular_V3xx>

The big problem for Motorola in the UI department is that it's trying to
support too many platforms.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/04/motorola_phone_business_analysis/>

>Unfortunately, the radio portion always has sucked,
>and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if you've ever
>used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you would quickly
>realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas really does suck,
>badly.

I've had several of both, and find the better Motorola handsets to be
just as good as the better Nokia handsets in the radio department.
Where Motorola has fallen short is in some of its cheaper handsets, like
the V180.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:30:47 -0500, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
>> twelve years and have been satisfied!
>
>Anyone can get used to mediocrity. To be fair, motorola does put out a
>decent handset from time to time. At best, these decent Motorola handsets
>are not QUITE up to Nokia quality, but some come close.

Every bit as good in my experience.

>Too bad about the
>other 999 ****ty handsets motorola foists off on the unsuspecting public for
>every good one they produce.

While Motorola has produced some poor handsets in the radio department,
like the V180, those have been in the minority.

>The last good motorola handset was a
>T720/T730.

Both the V5xx series and RAZR series are actually quite good.

>But if you like Motorola, I am dead serious when I suggest that you would
>probably LOVE Nokia.

I've had several of both, and give the edge to Motorola. My Motorola
V3xx is better than any Nokia I've tried.

>For starters, unless you are tone deaf, sound quality
>will be about 1000% improved, just from switching from Motorola (anything)
>to Nokia (anything). It will literally be like switching from a
>tin-can-and-string type sound quality to a land-line-telephone-replacement
>quality.

My V3xx has excellent sound quality. Have you ever tried one?

>Your reception will be at least 30% better with Nokia, assuming
>the motorola and Nokia were compatible with the same network. This
>translates to a lot less dropped calls and a lot less (what? WHAT?
>WHAT!!!!?????!?!!) A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
>into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
>handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal bars,
>calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!), calls do not
>drop, and sound quality is superb. Then you think back and remember that in
>the same area, you couldn't even connect a call with the motorola and the
>quality difference is painfully clear. At best, motorola will never be
>qualified to polish the boots of nokia. Nokia is what motorola would like
>to be but (sadly) will never be.

Again, that's not my experience with the Motorola V5xx series and the
V3xx against several Nokia handsets -- the Motorola handsets have
performed as well or better than the Nokia handsets.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:37:50 +1100, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote

>> Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly comparable.
>
>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Be warned that I don't waste much time on people that stoop to insults
in their replies.

>GSM has a digital cliff that the other two technologys dont, and
>that has a dramatic effect on range outside the built up areas.

Actually not, since range is largely dictated by line of sight and low
handset power issues.

>> Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.
>
>You in spades.

Not true.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>