JD Power Report on Call Quality

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 29 Mar 2006
> 16:46:48 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 29 Mar 2006
>>> 14:06:06 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sprint just inherited a bunch of iDen customers through the merger- using
>>>> your stupid logic I guess we disqualify their numbers as well.
>>> Indeed, lumping iDEN and CDMA together is as invalid as mixing ENS GSM,
>>> non-ENS GSM, single-band GSM, and D-AMPS ("TDMA") together.
>>>
>> How so?
>
> I'm pretty sure that's not a sincere question, but I'll answer for the benefit
> of any lurkers: Let's suppose that on a scale of 10, service on CDMA is
> 7, and service on iDEN is 9, with equal populations. Average service would
> thus be 8. However, that's not an accurate representation of either CDMA or
> iDEN, overstating the quality for CDMA, and understating it for iDEN. That's
> why it isn't valid to lump two different universes together, much like saying
> the average person has one breast or half a penis.
>
>> Are there different definitions of a quality call for each
>> protocol?
>
> Probably not, although those with iDEN PTT may have a different perspective on
> call quality.
>
>> Are certain protocols allowed to deliver a worse call and still
>> get high call quality? The survey measured call quality, which would not
>> change in definition between protocols. Most children would get that- why
>> can't you?
>
> Because, unlike you, I have no agenda and am not arguing for the sake of
> argument.
>
>> All you are doing is trying to deflect attention away from a valid survey
>> that exposes some of Cingular's dirty laundry.
>
> On the contrary -- I'm merely pointing out clear defects in the survey, which
> actually shows carriers to be roughly comparable. In fact it's quite possible
> that all carriers were within the range of sampling error -- we just don't
> know one way or the other because the sampling error (not to mention any of
> the actual methodology) isn't disclosed (in the press release and public
> summary at least).
>
>> Your very obvious obsession
>> with Cingular makes any post from you insignificant and usually based in
>> anything but fact.
>
> Nothing of the sort (your ongoing slurs notwithstanding) -- my consistent
> recommendation has been to choose the carrier with the best service and value
> in your particular area. Notwithstanding the personal agendas of certain
> people here, there is no one best carrier for all purposes in all areas. I've
> personally used all the major carriers. I currently use Cingular simply
> because it has the best service and value in my particular area. In a
> different area and/or with different needs, I might well use a different
> carrier.
>
>> Your Google-obtained education on a variety of subjects
>> is quite obvious- you are frequently wrong.
>>
>> Saying that your argument is weak would be giving it too much credit
>
> You are of course welcome to think and say whatever you want, not matter how
> wrong and childish.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
WOW you guy's know how to BEAT A DEAD HORSE!
G A L

---

› See More: JD Power Report on Call Quality

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:04:50
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> How so? Are there different definitions of a quality call for each
>> protocol? Are certain protocols allowed to deliver a worse call and still
>> get high call quality?
>
>It depends on the definition of call quality. For example, suppose
>someone still has a 1900 Mhz only Cingular phone, in say the Bay Area.
>Since 1900 Mhz cells have a shorter range, and don't penetrate into
>buildings as well, someone with a 1900 Mhz only handset on Cingular
>would in fact have more dropped calls, than a subscriber with a dual
>band ENS phone. Or if someone has a non ENS dual-band handset in an area
>with both orange and blue GSM, it could result in dropped calls as well.

You clearly don't understand ENS, which isn't a panacea -- ENS simply allows
Cingular to "home" an ENS SIM to either the "blue" (old ATTWS) or the "orange"
(old Cingular) network in order to optimize performance in different
locations. (It's *not* just a matter of frequency -- in some locations the
blue signal will be better, and in other locations the orange signal will be
better.) ENS *doesn't* combine the two networks, and it *won't* automatically
choose a better 850 blue signal if there is a "usable" orange 1900 signal when
homed on orange. The difference in performance is thus a matter of which
network is the home network, not the frequency.

>Of course such call quality issues that are the result of handset issues
>are fair game to be measured and included in the J.D. Power survey.

It's only "fair game" if the differences are disclosed -- lumping them
together isn't valid any more than saying that the average person has one
breast and half a penis.

>The reality is that most users have, by now, have dual band ENS handsets
>that take full advantage of the existing Cingular/AT&T networks.
>Cingular pushes such handsets very hard, not only to improve network
>quality, but to lock subscribers in for a longer period of time.

Almost certainly untrue, since ENS capable handsets have only been available
for a little more than a year, and since the average subscriber keeps a
handset on average for more than two years. Perhaps half of in use handsets
are ENS capable, although only Cingular knows with any certainty.

> > The survey measured call quality, which would not
>> change in definition between protocols.
>
>Again, they are not measuring just voice quality (or Navas would likely
>be decrying the differences in Codecs), but overall call quality,
>including the initial connection, the voice quality, and dropped calls.

Along with a number of other non call things, as you would know if you'd
actually read the results, including no immediate voice mail notification, and
no immediate text message notification.

>> All you are doing is trying to deflect attention away from a valid survey
>> that exposes some of Cingular's dirty laundry.
>
>This is the key point. It really doesn't matter what the excuses are for
>Cingular's poor showing.

It's not a "poor" showing -- what the survey actually shows is that all
carriers are roughly comparable and that all carriers have gotten better.
Differences were small, perhaps even within the range of sampling error.

>OTOH, if every Cingular subscriber had the
>latest GSM handset, it might have helped increase Cingular's score very
>slightly

Or more than that -- there's simply no way to know.

>(OTOH, it could also have hurt the score, since TDMA/AMPS has
>better coverage than GSM).

Unlikely, since D-AMPS ("TDMA") has largely been migrated to GSM, and since
coverage wasn't being surveyed. Otherwise T-Mobile (GSM 1900 only) wouldn't
have done as well as it did.

>> Your very obvious obsession
>> with Cingular makes any post from you insignificant and usually based in
>> anything but fact.
>
>Which is why I kill-file people like him, rather than trying to educate
>them.

It's actually just a childish response to being shown to be wrong so often.
Eyes squeezed tight shut, hands clapped over ears, chanting over and over,
"I can't see or hear you!"

>"You can't have a debate with someone who is willing to make up
>the facts." Eric Hauser, former press Secretary to Bill Bradley "

Funny and sad how you try to claim that other have your own weaknesses.

--
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 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:04:50
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> How so? Are there different definitions of a quality call for each
>> protocol? Are certain protocols allowed to deliver a worse call and still
>> get high call quality?
>
>It depends on the definition of call quality. For example, suppose
>someone still has a 1900 Mhz only Cingular phone, in say the Bay Area.
>Since 1900 Mhz cells have a shorter range, and don't penetrate into
>buildings as well, someone with a 1900 Mhz only handset on Cingular
>would in fact have more dropped calls, than a subscriber with a dual
>band ENS phone. Or if someone has a non ENS dual-band handset in an area
>with both orange and blue GSM, it could result in dropped calls as well.

You clearly don't understand ENS, which isn't a panacea -- ENS simply allows
Cingular to "home" an ENS SIM to either the "blue" (old ATTWS) or the "orange"
(old Cingular) network in order to optimize performance in different
locations. (It's *not* just a matter of frequency -- in some locations the
blue signal will be better, and in other locations the orange signal will be
better.) ENS *doesn't* combine the two networks, and it *won't* automatically
choose a better 850 blue signal if there is a "usable" orange 1900 signal when
homed on orange. The difference in performance is thus a matter of which
network is the home network, not the frequency.

>Of course such call quality issues that are the result of handset issues
>are fair game to be measured and included in the J.D. Power survey.

It's only "fair game" if the differences are disclosed -- lumping them
together isn't valid any more than saying that the average person has one
breast and half a penis.

>The reality is that most users have, by now, have dual band ENS handsets
>that take full advantage of the existing Cingular/AT&T networks.
>Cingular pushes such handsets very hard, not only to improve network
>quality, but to lock subscribers in for a longer period of time.

Almost certainly untrue, since ENS capable handsets have only been available
for a little more than a year, and since the average subscriber keeps a
handset on average for more than two years. Perhaps half of in use handsets
are ENS capable, although only Cingular knows with any certainty.

> > The survey measured call quality, which would not
>> change in definition between protocols.
>
>Again, they are not measuring just voice quality (or Navas would likely
>be decrying the differences in Codecs), but overall call quality,
>including the initial connection, the voice quality, and dropped calls.

Along with a number of other non call things, as you would know if you'd
actually read the results, including no immediate voice mail notification, and
no immediate text message notification.

>> All you are doing is trying to deflect attention away from a valid survey
>> that exposes some of Cingular's dirty laundry.
>
>This is the key point. It really doesn't matter what the excuses are for
>Cingular's poor showing.

It's not a "poor" showing -- what the survey actually shows is that all
carriers are roughly comparable and that all carriers have gotten better.
Differences were small, perhaps even within the range of sampling error.

>OTOH, if every Cingular subscriber had the
>latest GSM handset, it might have helped increase Cingular's score very
>slightly

Or more than that -- there's simply no way to know.

>(OTOH, it could also have hurt the score, since TDMA/AMPS has
>better coverage than GSM).

Unlikely, since D-AMPS ("TDMA") has largely been migrated to GSM, and since
coverage wasn't being surveyed. Otherwise T-Mobile (GSM 1900 only) wouldn't
have done as well as it did.

>> Your very obvious obsession
>> with Cingular makes any post from you insignificant and usually based in
>> anything but fact.
>
>Which is why I kill-file people like him, rather than trying to educate
>them.

It's actually just a childish response to being shown to be wrong so often.
Eyes squeezed tight shut, hands clapped over ears, chanting over and over,
"I can't see or hear you!"

>"You can't have a debate with someone who is willing to make up
>the facts." Eric Hauser, former press Secretary to Bill Bradley "

Funny and sad how you try to claim that other have your own weaknesses.

--
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

jc wrote:
> WOW you guy's know how to BEAT A DEAD HORSE!
> G A L

Well, ya know...the more ya run over a dead cat in the road, the flatter
it gets.

In article
<[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

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

> >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)

as he said, "the numbers speak for themselves, there is no way to
rationalize the results as some are attempting.