On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:46:08 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 08/08/10 5:32 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> John Navas<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually it's not just journalists. Every statistically sound survey not
>>>> funded by the carrier has shown the same thing for many years.
>>>
>>> Translation: Surveys which show AT&T doesn't suck are not
>>> "statistically sound" in your opinion.
>>
>> What about AT&T themselves saying that they suck?
>
>AT&T goes back and forth between denying the results of surveys by
>Consumer Reports, Yankee Group, Changewave, and Consumer Checkbook, and
>admitting the problems that they have and promising to fix them.

Not true, probably the reason you have no supporting citations.

>There are of course tests and surveys that show certain aspects of AT&T
>in a good light. For example there were speed tests of 3G data that
>showed that AT&T had higher 3G data rates than other carriers.
>Unfortunately for AT&T, higher data rates are not the criteria by which
>most users choose a 3G service--coverage trumps slightly higher data
>rates, which is why Verizon's "there's a map for that" ad campaign
>infuriated AT&T so much.

Sure, because it was false and misleading.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

On 08/08/10 5:32 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> John Navas<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Actually it's not just journalists. Every statistically sound survey not
>>> funded by the carrier has shown the same thing for many years.
>>
>> Translation: Surveys which show AT&T doesn't suck are not
>> "statistically sound" in your opinion.
>
> What about AT&T themselves saying that they suck?

AT&T goes back and forth between denying the results of surveys by
Consumer Reports, Yankee Group, Changewave, and Consumer Checkbook, and
admitting the problems that they have and promising to fix them.

There are of course tests and surveys that show certain aspects of AT&T
in a good light. For example there were speed tests of 3G data that
showed that AT&T had higher 3G data rates than other carriers.
Unfortunately for AT&T, higher data rates are not the criteria by which
most users choose a 3G service--coverage trumps slightly higher data
rates, which is why Verizon's "there's a map for that" ad campaign
infuriated AT&T so much.

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

> In fact AT&T has a similar coverage footprint to Verizon in the greater
> Bay Area, as I've shown a number of times when you've claimed to have
> Verizon coverage in areas where Verizon's own maps showed it didn't have
> coverage. (Oops!)

in fact, it doesn't. at&t admits their coverage in the bay area is
problematic, why can't you? verizon has no such claim, nor are there
very many complaints by people who actually use it.

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:04:52 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06/08/10 9:56 AM, nospam wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> countless people have used at&t in the bay area and have said it sucks,
>> including tech journalists.
>
>Actually it's not just journalists. Every statistically sound survey not
>funded by the carrier has shown the same thing for many years.

Translation: Surveys which show AT&T doesn't suck are not
"statistically sound" in your opinion.

>[SNIP distortion of history and technology]

>All that said, AT&T is usable in most of the Bay Area's urban centers.
>Where the problems occur are in the outlying areas, the mountains and
>valleys and the green belt, as well as in hilly areas where there are
>large areas of residential with no commercial areas where AT&T can put
>up towers. Verizon got lucky (actually it was not luck, but good
>planning) to a) get sufficient towers up for digital coverage before
>NIMBYs could get organized, and b) choose a newer technology that works
>better in these sorts of areas.

In fact AT&T has a similar coverage footprint to Verizon in the greater
Bay Area, as I've shown a number of times when you've claimed to have
Verizon coverage in areas where Verizon's own maps showed it didn't have
coverage. (Oops!)

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

On 06/08/10 9:56 AM, nospam wrote:

<snip>

> countless people have used at&t in the bay area and have said it sucks,
> including tech journalists.

Actually it's not just journalists. Every statistically sound survey not
funded by the carrier has shown the same thing for many years.

The last time one of the major surveys showed AT&T as the top carrier it
was the old AT&T Wireless (not the current renamed Cingular) was before
the Cingular buyout when AT&T operated a TDMA/AMPS network (that they
bought from Cellular One) which was indeed the best network in the Bay Area.

What happened was that during the botched TDMA/AMPS to GSM coversion by
AT&T, things became much worse, and AT&T began hemorrhaging customers.
As the Seattle PI wrote "The once-dynamic cellular carrier – the
nation’s most popular through 1999 – slipped to third place and has
remained there through a combination of poor technology choice,
customer-service snafus and failure to consolidate. Its declining
stature made it a tempting takeover target, valuable for its network and
spectrum licenses."
"http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20040921/ATT_disconnected.pdf"

The "poor technology choice" they refer to was AT&T's early GSM service
which was at 1900 MHz only, while they kept TDMA and AMPS at 800 MHz.
This made AT&T's early GSM service absolutely horrible, and combined
with LNP (local number portability) which occurred around the same time
they began to lose massive numbers of subscribers.

All that said, AT&T is usable in most of the Bay Area's urban centers.
Where the problems occur are in the outlying areas, the mountains and
valleys and the green belt, as well as in hilly areas where there are
large areas of residential with no commercial areas where AT&T can put
up towers. Verizon got lucky (actually it was not luck, but good
planning) to a) get sufficient towers up for digital coverage before
NIMBYs could get organized, and b) choose a newer technology that works
better in these sorts of areas.

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:24:33 -0500, in
<[email protected]>, Paul Miner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:52:23 -0700, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:22:41 +0000 (UTC), in
>><[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote on [Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:27:02 -0700]:
>>
>>>>>AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
>>>>>usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
>>>>>hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.
>>>>
>>>> AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.
>>>
>>>Not according to EVERY SINGLE tech journalist who lives there
>>
>>Have you actually used it? I have.
>
>Your claimed experience is anecdotal, at best.

Of course.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:52:23 -0700, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:22:41 +0000 (UTC), in
><[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote on [Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:27:02 -0700]:
>
>>>>AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
>>>>usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
>>>>hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.
>>>
>>> AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.
>>
>>Not according to EVERY SINGLE tech journalist who lives there
>
>Have you actually used it? I have.

Your claimed experience is anecdotal, at best.

--
Paul Miner

John Navas wrote on [Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:52:23 -0700]:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:22:41 +0000 (UTC), in
> <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote on [Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:27:02 -0700]:
>
>>>>AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
>>>>usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
>>>>hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.
>>>
>>> AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.
>>
>>Not according to EVERY SINGLE tech journalist who lives there
>
> Have you actually used it? I have.

When everyone agrees, including AT&T, that there are issues, I don't
have to actually use it. That's WHY we have reviews and tech journos.

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

> >>>AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
> >>>usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
> >>>hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.
> >>
> >> AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.
> >
> >Not according to EVERY SINGLE tech journalist who lives there
>
> Have you actually used it? I have.

countless people have used at&t in the bay area and have said it sucks,
including tech journalists. at&t even says that san francisco is a
problem area. if *they* admit it's a problem, then it's a problem.
usually companies try to deny things like that.

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

> >AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
> >usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
> >hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.
>
> AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.

actually it doesn't, something at&t has admitted (new york city being
another major problem area).

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:22:41 +0000 (UTC), in
<[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Navas wrote on [Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:27:02 -0700]:

>>>AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
>>>usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
>>>hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.
>>
>> AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.
>
>Not according to EVERY SINGLE tech journalist who lives there

Have you actually used it? I have.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

John Navas wrote on [Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:27:02 -0700]:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:52:07 -0700, in
> <[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Of the big four, I'm arguing only T-Mo users benefit from a "dramatic"
>>> chance of increased coverage by lugging around a PP phone. AT&T operates
>>> a large mature network just like Verizon, with a similar footprint, and
>>> Sprint has far more roaming on Verizon than T-Mo has on AT&T. I think
>>> your perception of AT&T is "tainted" by a few coverage holes in your
>>> immediate area. In most places they're the old legacy 800MHz Yin to
>>> Verizon's Yang.
>>
>>The footprint of AT&T/GSM roaming is much smaller than that of
>>Verizon/CDMA roaming. That's based on first hand experience as well as
>>the carrier's own maps.
>
> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
> Not to mention verizon commercials. This is a classic case in point.
> Coverage only matters in places you actually go.
>
>>[SNIP meaningless personal anecdote]
>
>>AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
>>usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
>>hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.
>
> AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.

Not according to EVERY SINGLE tech journalist who lives there

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:52:07 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Of the big four, I'm arguing only T-Mo users benefit from a "dramatic"
>> chance of increased coverage by lugging around a PP phone. AT&T operates
>> a large mature network just like Verizon, with a similar footprint, and
>> Sprint has far more roaming on Verizon than T-Mo has on AT&T. I think
>> your perception of AT&T is "tainted" by a few coverage holes in your
>> immediate area. In most places they're the old legacy 800MHz Yin to
>> Verizon's Yang.
>
>The footprint of AT&T/GSM roaming is much smaller than that of
>Verizon/CDMA roaming. That's based on first hand experience as well as
>the carrier's own maps.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Not to mention verizon commercials. This is a classic case in point.
Coverage only matters in places you actually go.

>[SNIP meaningless personal anecdote]

>AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
>usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
>hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.

AT&T actually works great here in the SF Bay Area.

>[SNIP meaningless personal anecdote]

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

Todd Allcock wrote:

<snip>

> Of the big four, I'm arguing only T-Mo users benefit from a "dramatic"
> chance of increased coverage by lugging around a PP phone. AT&T operates
> a large mature network just like Verizon, with a similar footprint, and
> Sprint has far more roaming on Verizon than T-Mo has on AT&T. I think
> your perception of AT&T is "tainted" by a few coverage holes in your
> immediate area. In most places they're the old legacy 800MHz Yin to
> Verizon's Yang.

The footprint of AT&T/GSM roaming is much smaller than that of
Verizon/CDMA roaming. That's based on first hand experience as well as
the carrier's own maps.

On a 4000 mile road trip the past two weeks, having carried phones that
use the AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon networks, it's no exaggeration to
state that Verizon coverage is far greater than other networks in parts
of the country. Much of this trip was through states where GSM coverage
is especially poor--Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming,
as shown by the carrier's own maps. The GSM phones did roam occasionally
onto small local carriers, but the coverage was markedly poorer than on
Verizon.

AT&T's problems in the SF Bay Area are well known, but AT&T is still
usable by most residents that don't live outside the suburbs in the
hills and valleys where Verizon works fine.

Yesterday I did find an area where there was no coverage on any carrier.
It was on a Rails to Trails path that went through some really long tunnels.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:32:22 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 02 Aug 2010 23:05:00 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> The problem with T-Mobile and AT&T is that the coverage footprint is so
>> much smaller than what you get with Verizon or even Sprint postpaid. I
>> just went on a trip with some friends from Minnesota, driving in two
>> cars from their house near Young America (of rebate fame) to the Black
>> Hills of South Dakota. They're all on T-Mobile. For much of the trip
>> they had no coverage while of course all of us (on Verizon and
>> PagePlus/Verizon) rarely lacked coverage. It was really annoying trying
>> to contact them inside state and national parks, where Verizon usually
>> worked fine, but T-Mobile often had no coverage, roaming or otherwise.
>
>I think you vastly underestimate AT&T coverage. Whether that's just to
>get under the skin of a certain FAQ-slinger here, I'm not certain.

While he does have an axe to grind against me, dating back to the time
I first exposed the many gross errors on his self-proclaimed "cell
expert" website, this is more his personal anti-GSM pro-CDMA2000 crusade
that dates back to the time his wife couldn't get a GSM signal in her
office. In fairness to Steven, I don't think he's actually lying about
this, he just _believes_ it's bad, and makes up stories to support and
confirm his belief. After all, since it's "true", those made up stories
can't possibly be wrong, right?

>> When traveling outside larger urban areas it makes sense to bring along
>> a PagePlus/Verizon prepaid phone just to dramatically increase your
>> chances of coverage. Just because there is no carrier that provides 100%
>> coverage does not mean that all carriers provide equal coverage--far
>> from it.
>
>Of the big four, I'm arguing only T-Mo users benefit from a "dramatic"
>chance of increased coverage by lugging around a PP phone. AT&T operates
>a large mature network just like Verizon, with a similar footprint, and
>Sprint has far more roaming on Verizon than T-Mo has on AT&T.

Yep.

>I think
>your perception of AT&T is "tainted" by a few coverage holes in your
>immediate area. In most places they're the old legacy 800MHz Yin to
>Verizon's Yang.

It's "tainted" mostly by his strong belief. Those holes are mostly in
his imagination. I know that because I've tested some of those alleged
holes when he was careless enough to provide fairly specific locations
and showed them not to be holes. Now he mostly sticks to vague
references to relatively large areas, as in this case, which are
impossible to verify.

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman