Verizon first in Consumer Reports satisfaction survey

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi


Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.

---

› See More: Verizon first in Consumer Reports satisfaction survey

> http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi
>
>
> Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
> tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.

Link did not work. However, I understand they did not rate Alltel. I don't
put a lot of faith in their work, although the descriptions of appliance
features is helpful for understanding what might or might not be useful.

Years ago, Consumer Reports downgraded the Checker automobile because there
was too much room in the back seat. Well, DUH! In an age before SUV's and
Vans, THAT'S why you bought a Checker!

-Paul-
_________________________________
One day, I purchased a 4-drawer metal
filing cabinet at a clearance sale. We put
the cabinet on the floor of the back seat
of my Checker. The cabinet did not touch
either door, or either seat!
_________________________________

In alt.cellular Real Estate Agent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
>> tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.
>
> Link did not work. However, I understand they did not rate Alltel. I don't
> put a lot of faith in their work, although the descriptions of appliance
> features is helpful for understanding what might or might not be useful.

Alltel doesn't serve Chicago, and the Sun-Times is a Chicago paper.

Alltel isn't really a nationwide carrier, either - doesn't serve anywhere
near the number of markets that the big guys do.

--
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 11:13:35 GMT, HK <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi
>
>
>Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
>tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.

That's a nice reference unfortunately it doesn't show anything of any
use to anyone unless you think a blank page is useful.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NO from .NOcom to reply

Joseph wrote on [Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:57:15 -0800]:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:13:35 GMT, HK <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi
>>
>>
>>Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
>>tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.
>
> That's a nice reference unfortunately it doesn't show anything of any
> use to anyone unless you think a blank page is useful.

try http://www.suntimes.com/output/busin...in-cell07.html

Justin wrote on [Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:04:53 GMT]:
> Joseph wrote on [Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:57:15 -0800]:
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:13:35 GMT, HK <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi
>>>
>>>
>>>Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
>>>tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.
>>
>> That's a nice reference unfortunately it doesn't show anything of any
>> use to anyone unless you think a blank page is useful.
>
> try http://www.suntimes.com/output/busin...in-cell07.html

Of course, Consumer Reports is pretty useless when it comes to
technology anyway

"Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new
phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine
calls unfair. "

Ummmm.... so they expect every phone to work with every provider....

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:07:26 GMT, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new
>phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine
>calls unfair. "
>
>Ummmm.... so they expect every phone to work with every provider....

My point exactly in previous posts. When you find a blatant error like
this--and CR is guilty more often than you'd expect--revealing
significant lack of knowledge on the subject, it is fair to doubt the
entire study.

CR isn't worth the price of the magazine, imo.

I think it's TOTALLY unfair that T-Mo won't activate my SprintPCS
phone. PLEASE!



----------------------------
To email me, remove the zz.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:32:40 GMT, RexYBlue <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My point exactly in previous posts. When you find a blatant error like
>this--and CR is guilty more often than you'd expect--revealing
>significant lack of knowledge on the subject, it is fair to doubt the
>entire study.
>
>CR isn't worth the price of the magazine, imo.
>
>I think it's TOTALLY unfair that T-Mo won't activate my SprintPCS
>phone. PLEASE!

As far as automobiles go, they have done right by me. I ignored what
I read about the car I bought. It turned out to have the same
mediocre brakes that they mention. I think they probably handle most
of their statistical analysis very well, where they may suffer is the
questions they ask in a satisfaction poll.


Tom Veldhouse

Justin wrote:

> >>
> >>Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
> >>tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.
> >
> > That's a nice reference unfortunately it doesn't show anything of any
> > use to anyone unless you think a blank page is useful.
>
> try http://www.suntimes.com/output/busin...in-cell07.html

From the article:
"Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new
phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine
calls unfair. "

Are we to beleive that CR is REALLY that clueless about taking your
phone
with you to another company?

I don't think I'll be wasting any money on that trashloid.

Justin wrote:

> > try http://www.suntimes.com/output/busin...in-cell07.html
>
> Of course, Consumer Reports is pretty useless when it comes to
> technology anyway
>
> "Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new
> phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine
> calls unfair. "
>
> Ummmm.... so they expect every phone to work with every provider....

Exactly... don't know what they're thinking.

"Michael Arends" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin wrote:
>
> > >>
> > >>Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
> > >>tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.
> > >
> > > That's a nice reference unfortunately it doesn't show anything of any
> > > use to anyone unless you think a blank page is useful.
> >
> > try http://www.suntimes.com/output/busin...in-cell07.html
>
> From the article:
> "Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new
> phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine
> calls unfair. "
>
> Are we to beleive that CR is REALLY that clueless about taking your
> phone
> with you to another company?
>
> I don't think I'll be wasting any money on that trashloid.

And they also say this when talking about time to port and having to carry
twophones during the process:

"The Consumers Union, the watchdog group that publishes Consumer Reports,
said it will lobby the Federal Communications Commission to better enforce
rules regarding number portability, as it's called."

What rules? There are no rules to enforce- they simply mandated that
portability was to happen.

My entire outlook on the magazine has changed because of the total lack of a
clue that exhibit in this article. It puts their 'results' in a questionable
light.

RexYBlue <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:07:26 GMT, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new
> >phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine
> >calls unfair. "
> >
> >Ummmm.... so they expect every phone to work with every provider....
>
> My point exactly in previous posts. When you find a blatant error like
> this--and CR is guilty more often than you'd expect--revealing
> significant lack of knowledge on the subject, it is fair to doubt the
> entire study.
>
> CR isn't worth the price of the magazine, imo.
>
> I think it's TOTALLY unfair that T-Mo won't activate my SprintPCS
> phone. PLEASE!

Find me the source!!

From http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1073608774417

"• Numbers may be portable, but phones are not. If you change
carriers, you'll need a new phone."

*Michael Notforyou*

Only 31,000! I would think that a real study would need to be
larger. Hundreds of thousands would be more reliable.


Joseph wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:13:35 GMT, HK <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi
>>
>>
>>Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was
>>tallied and rated for each of 12 cities.
>
>
> That's a nice reference unfortunately it doesn't show anything of any
> use to anyone unless you think a blank page is useful.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> remove NO from .NOcom to reply

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Only 31,000! I would think that a real study would need to be
> larger. Hundreds of thousands would be more reliable.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. At best, it would represent less
than 0.5% of the subscribers for the five largest carriers, and less than
that of all cellular users. I'm also kind of curious how they got the
31,000. Did they solicit participation (not scientifically or statistically
accurate)? Did they ask carriers for subscriber's names (doubtful, and not
accurate)? The more this gets discuseed, the more I doubt anything to do
with this 'survey'.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:22:14 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Only 31,000! I would think that a real study would need to be
>larger. Hundreds of thousands would be more reliable.

Actually a sample of 31,000 might not be bad, statistically. However,
did they send out 31000 questionnaires (to which maybe only 2500
replied)? Is this based on 31000 replies? If the sample wasn't
carefully selected, it's worthless, 31000 or 310,000.

Statistics don't lie, but statisticians can, and sometimes do. Also,
the results of the survey depend on what questions are asked and how.
Survey results can very easily be manipulated in this and other ways.

I don't like Consumer Reports as a rule. I'm sure at times they're
dead on the money, but as far as I'm concerned they're not reliable.



----------------------------
To email me, remove the zz.