Consumer Reports (was:Current state of cellular?

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected]m says...
> Very interesting article. However, even if GSM *is* less able as the
> article intimates GSM is deployed on over 3/4 of a billion subscribers
> world-wide. CDMA or at least 2G CDMA is only deployed to around 100
> million. If CDMA had been as superior as it's touted to be why didn't
> CDMA make any toehold in Europe when things were getting started in
> the early 80s?
>=20

The author of article addresses that point. Read it again,=20
please.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

---

› See More: Consumer Reports (was:Current state of cellular?

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:09:47 -0500, "S. Warsaw" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>*Better information about where your cell phone will work
>before buying a service plan.

There's absolutely no way that a carrier can show that a phone will
work in any area that they serve. Variables such as land topography
and obstructions can vary widely from one block to the next.

>*Pro-rated early contract termination charges - consumers
>shouldn't have to pay the full fee near the end of a
>contract, which can often range from $175 to $200 per phone.

And of course does this mean that you can get out of your other
contractual obligations just because you have become dissatisfied with
them as well? Or are cell phone contracts immune from this?

>*A prohibition on companies "locking down" cell phones so
>they cannot be used on other carriers' networks.

*That* I'd like to see! I'd love to see Verizon's phones work on
AT&T's network. Maybe Consumer Reports can mandate that we all go
back to analog so everything would be compatible again? Of course
then CU would complain that all those cool analog phones only last an
hour before the battery dies and all your phone is good for is an
anchor to keep you from being blown away in a strong wind.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NO from .NOcom to reply

"S. Warsaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> From: "Consumer Reports' President Jim Guest"
> <[email protected]>
> Organization: Consumers Union
> To: All Subscribers
>
<snip>
> *A prohibition on companies "locking down" cell phones so
> they cannot be used on other carriers' networks.
<snip>
>
Nobody likes locked phones, but there *is* a tradeoff involved.
No more locked phones would mean no more subsidized phones.
Do we all want to pay retail prices? Of course, if phone makers
were competing in a free market, retail prices should come down.

"L David Matheny" <[email protected]> wrote

> Nobody likes locked phones, but there *is* a tradeoff involved.
> No more locked phones would mean no more subsidized phones.
> Do we all want to pay retail prices? Of course, if phone makers
> were competing in a free market, retail prices should come down.

What!? VZW doesn't lock its phones and subsidizes them as much
as anyone else. They have an early termination fee in the contract
to protect their subsidy. Providers recover their equipment subsidy
through service fees over time. Locking the phone or an early
termination fee pretty much accomplish the same thing. The difference
is after the subsidy cost has been recovered.

-Quick

Even at the base of the Hatteras Lighthouse the Alltel service is great. A
year ago there was none at that place.
"Real Estate Agent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Someone wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm in Seattle and have been using Verizon's service for about
> > > eight years (analog service). The service and the phone have
> > > their shortcomings, so I'm looking at getting something more
> > > contemporary.
>
> I recommend that you stick with one of the two companies in your market
> which offered Analog service in the early days of cellular phones. (You
know
> one of them is Verizon, and I suspect there is another one--but not more
> than two per market.)
>
> The reasoning is that these companies have an eight to ten year "jump" on
> the other carriers regarding tower placement. In my market (NC), the two
> original carriers were Verizon and Alltel. They upfitted the early towers
to
> include digital service (in addition to analog). And although they are
not
> adding analog sites, they have put in a large number of digital sites.
> Altogether, this adds up to extremely good signals when using a digital
> phone.
>
> I converted my Verizon account to digital about three years ago and I am
> very pleased. Four months ago, I converted my Alltel accounts to tri-mode
> phones and the results were astounding.
>
> I have parallel service with a Motorola "Brick" with an outside antenna,
and
> a Bag Phone. The tri-mode phones (a T720 and V60) equal or exceed the more
> powerful analog equipment in 95% of the places I go. The rare exception is
> in the mountains of North Carolina, and a few remote places along the
coast.
> So unless you make a lot of calls from the bases of lighthouses on barrier
> islands, I predict you will be very pleased with the new phone, provided
you
> keep it on either the A or B carrier.
>
> In our market, the "newbies" like ATT, Sprint, Cingular, T-mobile still
are
> playing catch-up on coverage, and folks grumble about the coverage. When
you
> are in a metro area, they do pretty well. But they still don't have the
> tower saturation of the original guys. And at the moment, nobody is
meeting
> Alltel's 1,000 anytime minute package for $39.95! Verizon is a close
second
> with 800. That's the other factor that keeps me on the A and B systems!
>
> By the way, the Brick and Bag Phones will continue to remain activated.
Hey!
> You NEVER know when you'll need them! (grin)
>
> -Paul-
> __________________________________
> There is an area north of Asheville where a
> bag phone with outside antenna is the ONLY
> way you're gonna talk!
> __________________________________
>
>
>

"L David Matheny" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "S. Warsaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > From: "Consumer Reports' President Jim Guest"
> > <[email protected]>
> > Organization: Consumers Union
> > To: All Subscribers
> >
> <snip>
> > *A prohibition on companies "locking down" cell phones so
> > they cannot be used on other carriers' networks.
> <snip>
> >
> Nobody likes locked phones, but there *is* a tradeoff involved.
> No more locked phones would mean no more subsidized phones.
> Do we all want to pay retail prices? Of course, if phone makers
> were competing in a free market, retail prices should come down.

The trade-off is being under contract and having an early termination
fee. The locking of phones is just as an additional bastard move to
discourage people from terminating.

-CH

"Baylorr" wrote...
> Even at the base of the Hatteras Lighthouse the Alltel service is great.
A
> year ago there was none at that place.

Perhaps that's how they subsidized the cost of moving it--by leasing it as a
cell site. (grin).

-Paul-
Raleigh NC

"Baylorr" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Even at the base of the Hatteras Lighthouse the Alltel service is great. A
> year ago there was none at that place.

What about Verizon's service there?

*Michael Notforyou*

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:54:17 GMT, O/Siris <0sīrīs@sprīntpcs.cōm>
wrote:

>This one is aimed at Europe, but I've always considered it
>among the best discussions on this:
>
>http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entrie...10/GSM3G.shtml

He is a well known CDMA fanatic and the article is full of biased
misinformation. It's also rather outdated.


/Marcus

--
Marcus AAkesson marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se
Gothenburg Callsigns: SM6XFN & SB4779
Sweden
>>>>>> Keep the world clean - no HTML in news or mail ! <<<<<<

I found it very informative and dovetails with other things I've read about
Qualcomm. He believes as I do that GSM only got so big because it was
initially mandated by law in Europe. Now, they are backpedaling and trying
to bring the CDMA overlay in, but can't because it is 'illegal'.
Out-of-date? I'd say it is still very accurate to the current scene (which
he saw 16 months ago).

Chris

"Marcus AAkesson" <marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:54:17 GMT, O/Siris <0sīrīs@sprīntpcs.cōm>
> wrote:
>
> >This one is aimed at Europe, but I've always considered it
> >among the best discussions on this:
> >
> >http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entrie...10/GSM3G.shtml
>
> He is a well known CDMA fanatic and the article is full of biased
> misinformation. It's also rather outdated.
>
>
> /Marcus
>
> --
> Marcus AAkesson marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se
> Gothenburg Callsigns: SM6XFN & SB4779
> Sweden
> >>>>>> Keep the world clean - no HTML in news or mail ! <<<<<<

In alt.cellular Marcus AAkesson <marcus.akesson@no_spam_please_home.se> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:54:17 GMT, O/Siris <0s?r?s@spr?ntpcs.c?m>
> wrote:
>
>>This one is aimed at Europe, but I've always considered it
>>among the best discussions on this:
>>
>>http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entrie...10/GSM3G.shtml
>
> He is a well known CDMA fanatic and the article is full of biased
> misinformation. It's also rather outdated.

He used to work for Qualcomm, I forget in what capacity (software engineer?)

>
> /Marcus
>

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Geek In Charge * 888.480.4NET (4638) * [email protected]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:48:17 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:45:30 -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:36:44 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:58:34 -0500, Larry Levitan
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Did you know verizon is still the number rated carrier?
>>>>
>>>>Did you know T-Mobile is the worst rated carrier?
>>>>
>>>>Do you know which phone is rated the best?
>>>>
>>>>If you really want to know which carrier is the best rated,
>>>>has the least amount of dropped calls, and look at an overview
>>>>of the service plans, buy the current edition of Consumer Reports.
>>>>They conducted a protracted investigation (about 12 pages) of
>>>>all the major carriers -- in various cities. You'll be surprised!
>>>
>>>How about something to verify your claims?
>>
>>Uhm .. he did verify his claims. He said there was about a 12 page
>>spread in Consumer Reports which says what he posted. Go look and
>>report back if it is inaccurate.
>
>Sorry Tomtom but I ain't gonna subscribe to CR just to see their
>claims.

Fine, but all *he* claimed was that CR published the article, a fact which
has also been widely reported on TV (usually with a summary of the
article).

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Sometimes I think war is God's way of teaching us geography."
- Paul Rodriguez

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:45:30 -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:36:44 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:58:34 -0500, Larry Levitan
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Did you know verizon is still the number rated carrier?
> >>>
> >>>Did you know T-Mobile is the worst rated carrier?
> >>>
> >>>Do you know which phone is rated the best?
> >>>
> >>>If you really want to know which carrier is the best rated,
> >>>has the least amount of dropped calls, and look at an overview
> >>>of the service plans, buy the current edition of Consumer Reports.
> >>>They conducted a protracted investigation (about 12 pages) of
> >>>all the major carriers -- in various cities. You'll be surprised!
> >>
> >>How about something to verify your claims?
> >>
> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> remove NO from .NOcom to reply
> >
> >
> >Uhm .. he did verify his claims. He said there was about a 12 page
> >spread in Consumer Reports which says what he posted. Go look and
> >report back if it is inaccurate.
> >
> >
> >Tom Veldhouse
>
> Sorry Tomtom but I ain't gonna subscribe to CR just to see their
> claims.

You don't have to. Go to a library and look for it. They will let you look
for free, and probably photocopy it for a few of those round shiny silver
pieces.


---
Update your PC at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/9/2004

In article <[email protected]>,=20
Marcus AAkessonmarcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se=20
says...
> He is a well known CDMA fanatic and the article is full of biased
> misinformation. It's also rather outdated.=20
>=20

By all means, fill me in on what's wrong.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

"Scott" <//[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First, take Consumer Reports recommendations with a grain of salt. Sure
> they do provide a service, but when it comes to high tech stuff I think
> their analysis usually falls short.

The survey results on coverage, capacity, voice-quality, and dropped calls,
are what they are, the results of their survey of 31,000 of their
subscribers, from subscribers that chose to respond, no analysis there.

They do mention the fact that Verizon may be the best option, hard to
dispute that since Verizon was the top rated carrier in all twelve
metropolitan areas that they surveyed.

Their handset ratings are incomplete and fairly useless. In that sense you
are correct about their analysis being flawed.

Few surprises in the survey results, at least in the geographic areas I'm
familiar with. I was surprised that AT&T fell to last place in Southern
California and New York City; being worse than Cingular in California is a
difficult accomplishment.

We're not talking close races here. In 11 of the 12 cities surveyed, Verizon
was at least 5 points ahead of the 2nd place carrier; in San Francisco and
New York it was 9 points better.

You want analysis? Here's mine. The dramatic decline of AT&T was due to
their conversion to GSM, especially since they initially deployed GSM only
at 1900 Mhz. As 800 Mhz bandwidth is converted from TDMA to GSM, and as dual
band GSM handsets become more widely used, Verizon's lead will narrow in
many cities (if the GSM carrier has 800 Mhz bandwidth of course). The
Consumer Reports article includes a sidebar "Trouble in the GSM network."
Alas, they should have published this a year ago, before millions of people
got stuck with GSM service in a two year contract.