 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Alltel / May 2006American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Report Evaluates Consumer Satisfaction with Wireless Carriers. T-Mobile and Verizon top ratings, Cingular and Sprint tied at the bottom.
The ACSI measures consumer satisfaction across a range of goods and services. See "http://www.theacsi.org/press_releases/0506q1.htm" "The wireless telephone service industry improved 5% this year to 66 – still significantly below the national average [of overall satisfaction with all goods and services]. T-Mobile gains 8% to a score of 69 to join Verizon Wireless at the top of the industry. Most of the other companies in wireless have higher ACSI scores than they did a year ago, except for Sprint Nextel which remains tied at the bottom of the industry with Cingular at a score of 63." >The ACSI measures consumer satisfaction across a range of goods and >services. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >except for Sprint Nextel which remains tied at the bottom of the >industry with Cingular at a score of 63." The differences between 63 and 66 and 69 are of course quite small. The acknowledged margin for error at the firm level is at least 2-3%, and it may well be worse than that, due to "non-response bias." See "A White Paper on RESEARCH SAMPLING" by Insight MAS at <http://www.insightmas.com/documents/WhitePaper-Sampling.pdf>: Sometimes researchers are even more blatant in their disregard for the legitimacy of proper sampling techniques by engaging in "over-sampling." This is a technique whereby an unlimited list of potential respondents is obtained from the targeted population and contacts are made on that list until the "magic number" is reached. The widely recognized American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), for example, completes over 30,000 consumer surveys by telephone each calendar quarter, but dials nearly 300,000 consumers to accomplish that many. Despite its response rate of around 10%, the ACSIs methodological report indicates no serious attempt at preventing or detecting non-response bias. Most qualified statisticians would suggest that the ACSI would be better serving their audiences by reporting, say, 300 properly obtained completed surveys than the 30,000 obtained by over-sampling.  SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > reporting, say, 300 properly obtained completed surveys than the > 30,000 obtained by over-sampling. Rubbish- a poorly written "article" by a competitor (if you can call them that). Their customer base leaves a lot to be desired- when Roto Rooter is one of your top clients, comenting on others is probably not a good idea. >>>The ACSI measures consumer satisfaction across a range of goods and >>>services. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> reporting, say, 300 properly obtained completed surveys than the >> 30,000 obtained by over-sampling. >Rubbish- a poorly written "article" by a competitor (if you can call them >that). Their customer base leaves a lot to be desired- when Roto Rooter is >one of your top clients, comenting on others is probably not a good idea. That criticism isn't valid, and can't be dismissed so easily -- non-response bias is a real problem in surveys, and that criticism mirrors conclusions of respected researchers; e.g., Research Paper: Low Response Rates and Their Effects on Survey Results <http://www.sch.abs.gov.au/SCH%5CA1610103.NSF/0/3CE43BABF8BBF59DCA256B7C0001AEA4? OpenDocument=> Overall, we can conclude that non response bias can have significant detrimental effects on the accuracy of survey estimates. These effects can be reduced through higher response rates. From this, it is recommended that steps should be taken to ensure that the response rates achieved in any particular survey are as high as possible. Response rates can be increased through good survey practices such as the use of high quality questionnaires, increased interviewer training, assuring respondents of the confidentiality of the information they provide and dedication of resources and time to following up non respondents. With a response rate of only 10%, the ACSI is quite vulnerable to non-response bias, significantly increasing the margin of error. In other words, specific scores should be taken with a grain of salt. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > With a response rate of only 10%, the ACSI is quite vulnerable to > non-response > bias, significantly increasing the margin of error. In other words, > specific > scores should be taken with a grain of salt. Rubbish. There is no doubt that you would have a completely different stance had Cingular--your pet carrier--come out on top. Yet they never seem to on any survey. Oh wait, that's not quite true: they are still running ads based on that ridiculous survey Cingular paid for themselves ("yes, it's true, a leading independent research firm said so"). SignatureMike > Yet they never seem to on any survey. Oh wait, that's not quite true: > they are still running ads based on that ridiculous survey Cingular paid > for themselves ("yes, it's true, a leading independent research firm > said so"). Even the company that did the survey for Cingular said that Cingular's conclusion, from the survey data, was bogus. It's pretty bad when the company you pay to do a survey refutes to even back you up! Clearly the firm that did the survey was very worried about their reputation after Cingular's false claims. >> Yet they never seem to on any survey. Oh wait, that's not quite true: >> they are still running ads based on that ridiculous survey Cingular paid [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Even the company that did the survey for Cingular said that Cingular's >conclusion, from the survey data, was bogus. Yet another fabrication. What it actually said: In a letter sent on Monday to the four largest wireless companies, Telephia confirmed that Cingular had a "statistically significant lower dropped-call rate than the competition across some market/time period groupings." But Telephia also said it had "no knowledge of the specific methodology (markets, time periods or statistical thresholds) Cingular used to reach the nationwide 'lowest dropped call' conclusion." >It's pretty bad when the >company you pay to do a survey refutes to even back you up! Clearly the >firm that did the survey was very worried about their reputation after >Cingular's false claims. Hardly. And then there's the part about your favorite carrier that you always conveniently leave out: Take Verizon Wireless. Since early 2005, the company has run ads promoting its network reliability. Some of the ads highlight the fact that about 100 of the company's engineers drive around the country making calls to compare Verizon phones with those of other carriers. Not surprisingly, Verizon has found that it has the best service. Funny how you criticize only Cingular when Verizon didn't even use a third party for its claims. For those interested in the complete story: <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/business/media/03adco.html?ei=5088&en=b376483a 9562df2b&ex=1304308800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all> or <http://tinyurl.com/mnhx8> For registration: <http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com> SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> In alt.cellular.t-mobile John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: > Take Verizon Wireless. Since early 2005, the company has run ads > promoting its network reliability. Some of the ads highlight the fact [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Funny how you criticize only Cingular when Verizon didn't even use a third > party for its claims. Verizon takes pride in how it gathers this information. I once saw on television what they do with those trucks. They have several phones hooked up in vans which are automated. The driver drives from place to place and they check coverage. Simple. If Verizon's reputation were such that it was in contrast to what they claim, then I would consider their results to be problematic, but that is not the case. Their claims are backed up by the fact that customers simply like them the best [at the expense of cash in their wallets]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >In alt.cellular.t-mobile John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >in vans which are automated. The driver drives from place to place and they >check coverage. Simple. All major carriers do this. >If Verizon's reputation were such that it was in contrast to what they claim, >then I would consider their results to be problematic, but that is not the >case. Their claims are backed up by the fact that customers simply like them >the best [at the expense of cash in their wallets]. I respectfully disagree. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>If Verizon's reputation were such that it was in contrast to what they claim, >>then I would consider their results to be problematic, but that is not the >>case. Their claims are backed up by the fact that customers simply like them >>the best [at the expense of cash in their wallets]. > > I respectfully disagree. I am sure you do. So, you discredit most surveys and polls? From a personal perspective, I know more people happy with Verizon than the rest. Sprint PCS has a few more holes in the system, probably to be expected on PCS (requires a denser tower distribution). The GSM carriers tend to have more trouble with cutting out and dropped calls, again, this is my experience from people I have personally dealt with. Verizon offers CDMA, which makes better use of available bandwidth, they cover both 800MHz and some 1900MHz as well as own a huge base of licensed spectrum (or they have agreements in place), and couple that with proper tower saturation and excellent customer support and I have a hard time believing that anybody will beat them on quality and satisfaction alone. The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... they are notoriously expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... they are notoriously >expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. Verizon lost me as a customer when they immediately stopped my service when my auto-pay credit card got a new expiration date and I didn't tell them quickly enough. You'd think they'd call or email first to see what was going on. Nope. But what really got me steamed is that they had no problem shutting it off instantly, but to get it turned back on required 5 days or some garbage like that. (Plus, I love my Sidekick now.) SignatureSteven O'Neill steveo@panix.com Brooklyn, NY In alt.cellular.t-mobile Steven M. O'Neill <steveo@panix.com> wrote: >>The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... they are notoriously >>expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. > > Verizon lost me as a customer when they immediately stopped my > service when my auto-pay credit card got a new expiration date > and I didn't tell them quickly enough. I am not defending Verizon at all here, but, lesson learned about Autopay. The only autopay I have ever used is BlockBuster Online. I recently had my credit card information stolen and fraudulently used (apparently by some a.shole in rec.photo.digital ... investigators are digging) and I promptly had that card killed, but you have to be aware of autopays to get them fixed ASAP (and I did). I don't trust auto-pay and never have, because the responsibility of paying the proper amount is on the biller and not the payer, and that to me is a signficant vulnerbility to a system failure or criminal activity ... or just plain mistakes. > You'd think they'd call or email first to see what was going on. I don't think so, although I would think they would give you grace if your credit rating is high enough (if your rating is low, I would cut your off immediately too). > Nope. > > But what really got me steamed is that they had no problem > shutting it off instantly, but to get it turned back on required > 5 days or some garbage like that. Yes, that is insane, as you can walk into any store and have it activated immediately. So, how did you pay when you reactivated? 5 days sounds like the time it takes a check to clear. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > I don't trust auto-pay and never have, because the > responsibility of paying the proper amount is on the biller and not the payer, > and that to me is a signficant vulnerbility to a system failure or criminal > activity ... or just plain mistakes. You should never do autopay from a checking account of course, but from a credit card you do have enough protection, and it's very convenient. In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: >> I don't trust auto-pay and never have, because the >> responsibility of paying the proper amount is on the biller and not the payer, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You should never do autopay from a checking account of course, but from > a credit card you do have enough protection, and it's very convenient. You *usually* have enough protection. It depends completely on the company. Often you are responsible for the first x number of dollars ... or you are not responsible for anything after the reported date ... yada yada. My point though is that they can have a glitch, or a billing error and bill you for FAR more than you owe. If you are on auto-pay, that money is taken from you and you fight to get it back, usually with a significant wait that amounts to a credit on your next bill. If they make such an error and you get a paper bill, then you are not out anything and you can call and get the bill fixed BEFORE you pay it. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Often you are responsible for the first x number of dollars ... or you are not > responsible for anything after the reported date ... yada yada. Yes, that's true. And on some of my bills, I don't even bother to open them. Still, for satellite, and wireless, I use auto-pay, and I haven't had a problem yet. > My point though is that they can have a glitch, or a billing error and bill > you for FAR more than you owe. If you are on auto-pay, that money is taken > from you and you fight to get it back, usually with a significant wait that > amounts to a credit on your next bill. No, the credit card company credits you immediately while they are investigating. However if you're wrong, you pay interest on the charge when it's confirmed. If they make such an error and you get > a paper bill, then you are not out anything and you can call and get the bill > fixed BEFORE you pay it. I'm so honest that when SBC credited my SBC account for $175, but there was no corresponding charge on my credit card, I called them. I don't know where the credit came from, and neither did they. In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > Yes, that's true. And on some of my bills, I don't even bother to open > them. Still, for satellite, and wireless, I use auto-pay, and I haven't > had a problem yet. Some do. Some do not. Some, like Bank Card Visa, which may be attached to your checking account, may make it rather difficult. >> My point though is that they can have a glitch, or a billing error and bill >> you for FAR more than you owe. If you are on auto-pay, that money is taken [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > investigating. However if you're wrong, you pay interest on the charge > when it's confirmed. See above. This is generally the case however, but it is by no means a fact. > If they make such an error and you get >> a paper bill, then you are not out anything and you can call and get the bill [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was no corresponding charge on my credit card, I called them. I don't > know where the credit came from, and neither did they. Good thing you did ... if they had given you that money and discovered it 6-months later, they would have a right to get it back ... a bit of a bummer if you already spent it and don't have the liquid funds available to pay them back. I once quit a job and had that employer continue to direct deposit into my account. It wasn't straightened out until deposit three ;) SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> My point though is that they can have a glitch, or a billing error and bill >> you for FAR more than you owe. If you are on auto-pay, that money is taken [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > investigating. However if you're wrong, you pay interest on the charge > when it's confirmed. You're right about the immediate credit. As far as finance charges, I think it varies by company. I recently disputed two charges on a Citibank credit card. After two months, one charge was decided in my favor, the second was upheld as valid, but they did not charge a finance charge on it. OTOH, I always pay my credit card bills in full each month (minus any disputed amounts), so perhaps that made a difference. SignatureJohn Richards >> I don't trust auto-pay and never have, because the >> responsibility of paying the proper amount is on the biller and not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You should never do autopay from a checking account of course, but from > a credit card you do have enough protection, and it's very convenient. Many mortgage companies/banks require auto-draft from checking accounts for mortgage payments (mine does). I use auto-pay from my credit card for many things, just too darn convenient to not do so. The only hassle is to update all the auto-pay accounts every few years when the cc expires. > Many mortgage companies/banks require auto-draft from checking accounts > for mortgage payments (mine does). I use auto-pay from my credit card > for many things, just too darn convenient to not do so. The only hassle > is to update all the auto-pay accounts every few years when the cc expires. Hmm, I've had many mortgages and never found one that had that requirement. I remember seeing some mortgage rates from banks that offered you 1/8 point off for automatic payment, but their rates were so high to begin with that it was meaningless. The mortgage company I used did give me 1/4 point for doing impound-escrow for both property tax and insurance, which was well worth it. >> Many mortgage companies/banks require auto-draft from checking accounts >> for mortgage payments (mine does). I use auto-pay from my credit card [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Hmm, I've had many mortgages and never found one that had that >requirement. ... So it must not be real. How typical of you. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So it must not be real. How typical of you. It must not be very common. Over the past 40 years I've had mortgage loans from at least 10 different companies, and was never required to have auto-draft from checking. Perhaps if one's credit history was bad enough, it might be a requirement. SignatureJohn Richards > It must not be very common. Over the past 40 years I've had > mortgage loans from at least 10 different companies, and was never > required to have auto-draft from checking. Perhaps if one's > credit history was bad enough, it might be a requirement. That's probably what they do, if your credit score is below a certain level, or maybe if the LTV is below a certain ratio, then they require auto-pay. I know that some banks will jack up the base rate, then offer a discount for auto-pay, but the places that already have the lowest rates don't do this. If you look at the wholesale rate sheets from the wholesale lenders, there is no discount for auto-pay, it's strictly a way for banks to try to get new accounts. On the wholesale rate sheet there are several discounts that a bank or broker can get (and choose to pass on to you): 1. Loan to value ratio above a certain percentage 2. High credit score (usually above 740) 3. Impound-escrow for taxes and/or property insurance I always use the FAXBACK service of the wholesale lenders to check on what discounts are currently being offered, as if you know about them, you're in a better bargaining position. >> It must not be very common. Over the past 40 years I've had >> mortgage loans from at least 10 different companies, and was never [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a discount for auto-pay, but the places that already have the lowest > rates don't do this. My current lender (Wells Fargo) did require auto-draft because I re-financed with a special program they had to get a great rate. Actually they also required the auto-draft from a Wells Fargo checking account, which I didn't have a the time. But I set one up just for the mortgage payment. This program was really nice because there were no closing costs for the refinance. Before that I always had auto-draft setup for my mortgage payments anyway, one less thing to deal with each month. -Jason user@domain.invalid wrote on [Fri, 19 May 2006 13:59:44 -0500]: >>> It must not be very common. Over the past 40 years I've had >>> mortgage loans from at least 10 different companies, and was never [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This program was really nice because there were no closing costs for the refinance. Before that I > always had auto-draft setup for my mortgage payments anyway, one less thing to deal with each month. Mortgage payments are generally a fixed amount each month though, so a surprise error is less likely to pop up. In alt.cellular.t-mobile user@domain.invalid wrote: > My current lender (Wells Fargo) did require auto-draft because I re-financed with a special program > they had to get a great rate. Actually they also required the auto-draft from a Wells Fargo > checking account, which I didn't have a the time. But I set one up just for the mortgage payment. > This program was really nice because there were no closing costs for the refinance. Before that I > always had auto-draft setup for my mortgage payments anyway, one less thing to deal with each month. Wells Fargo does it because they really hope you will do it with an account with them. Their real goal is selling your multiple products. Other than their online banking, I am not sure they are competitive with anything at all! SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > In alt.cellular.t-mobile user@domain.invalid wrote: >> My current lender (Wells Fargo) did require auto-draft because I re-financed with a special program [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with them. Their real goal is selling your multiple products. Other than > their online banking, I am not sure they are competitive with anything at all! I found their mortgage rates very uncompetitive (same with Washington Mutual). The best rate I found was through Costco, through Lending Tree. E-Trade mortgage ended up offering the best rate through Lending Tree, on the last two properties I refinanced. Plus you get a 200-$400 Costco Cash Card after the loan funds. E-Trade will negotiate rates, especially on jumbo loans. In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Richards <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote: > It must not be very common. Over the past 40 years I've had > mortgage loans from at least 10 different companies, and was never > required to have auto-draft from checking. Perhaps if one's > credit history was bad enough, it might be a requirement. I am on company five and I have never seen a mortgage company require autopay either. A few offer it. I prefer to manually setup payment each month ... no surprises that way. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >In alt.cellular.t-mobile Steven M. O'Neill <steveo@panix.com> wrote: >> Verizon lost me as a customer when they immediately stopped my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I am not defending Verizon at all here, but, lesson learned about Autopay. >[...] True. I don't use credit cards for auto-pay anymore. But that doesn't mean Verizon couldn't have handled it better. >> You'd think they'd call or email first to see what was going on. > >I don't think so, although I would think they would give you grace if your >credit rating is high enough (if your rating is low, I would cut your off >immediately too). Exactly. They didn't even wait until the bill's due date. I have impeccable credit, and always paid my Verizon bills on time. You'd think Verizon would have valued a customer like me a little more highly. I'm very happy to not have to deal with them anymore, as I also recently ditched the land line altogether. >> But what really got me steamed is that they had no problem >> shutting it off instantly, but to get it turned back on required [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >immediately. So, how did you pay when you reactivated? 5 days sounds like >the time it takes a check to clear. I offered to pay with a different credit card immediately, but when they told me it would take 5 days I told them not to bother. SignatureSteven O'Neill steveo@panix.com Brooklyn, NY >> The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... they are notoriously >> expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You'd think they'd call or email first to see what was going on. I had my credit card expire on Verizon, and I noticed it when the bill came with a past due balance. Yeah, it would be nice for them to call, SMS, or e-mail. I'm really surprised that they'd cut off service for that. >In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I am sure you do. So, you discredit most surveys and polls? Did I say that? No. But to be (even more) clear: * I don't put any stock in surveys and polls conducted by the entity benefitting from the results. * I don't put much stock in surveys and polls paid for by the entity benefitting from the results. * I take with a grain of salt surveys and polls with poor methodology; e.g., small sample size; self-selected (non-random) sample; non-uniform universe; low response rate; no assessment of non-response bias. * I take note of the margin of error. >From a personal >perspective, I know more people happy with Verizon than the rest. My own experience is that all major carriers are roughly comparable in terms of customer satisfaction, that differences are relatively small. >Sprint PCS >has a few more holes in the system, probably to be expected on PCS (requires a >denser tower distribution). In metro areas there is no significant technology difference (due to less than maximum range spacing), and even in non-metro areas the difference, due to shorter range from lower permitted maximum power for 1900 MHz, tends to be relatively small: * Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts. * Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts. It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range for 1900, and then only when range is limited only by power (not by terrain). >The GSM carriers tend to have more trouble with >cutting out and dropped calls, again, this is my experience from people I have >personally dealt with. My own experience, and that of many others, is different. Both GSM and CDMA have pros and cons; e.g., * CDMA cell "breathing" can result in degraded quality and dropped calls. * TDMA (GSM) can drop calls when moving to a cell running at full capacity. This of course varies from location to location, but carriers work hard to minimize such problems, and both technologies work well in general. >Verizon offers CDMA, which makes better use of >available bandwidth, The difference is small, and irrelevant from a subscriber standpoint. >they cover both 800MHz and some 1900MHz as well as own a >huge base of licensed spectrum (or they have agreements in place), and couple >that with proper tower saturation and excellent customer support and I have a >hard time believing that anybody will beat them on quality and satisfaction >alone. As of a couple of years ago, Verizon actually had the least spectrum per subscriber of the major carriers, and Cingular gained considerable spectrum and favorable tower locations as a result of the merger with ATTWS, but much has changed since then, and I know of no reliable public data on the current situation. >The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... Another is the lack of mobile device flexibility as compared to the open SIM-based GSM standard, as well as more limited device configuration. >they are notoriously >expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. That's likely because Cingular has become more competitive with Verizon (amount of corporate resources, economy of scale, number of subscribers, spectrum, towers, etc.) as a result of the merger with ATTWS. (As the smallest of the major carriers, T-Mobile is still buying market share.) SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: > Did I say that? No. But to be (even more) clear: > > * I don't put any stock in surveys and polls conducted by the entity > benefitting from the results. You are a naturally distrustful person apparently. It is entirely within the realm of reason that a company will conduct such "polling" or review so that they can maintain the quality of their product. It is a truly self-serving interest as to why they do it. In that case, the information is as accurate as they need it to be and would serve no purpose to have it skewed. I am not saying that is the case in general, but I do believe that is the reasoning behind Verizon's field trucks checking coverage and call quality. > * I don't put much stock in surveys and polls paid for by the entity > benefitting from the results. My comments above apply here as well. > * I take with a grain of salt surveys and polls with poor methodology; e.g., > small sample size; self-selected (non-random) sample; non-uniform universe; > low response rate; no assessment of non-response bias. Your assumption is that a given test did not have such assessments, when in fact, all you really know is that you don't have that information. > * I take note of the margin of error. As should everybody. >>From a personal >>perspective, I know more people happy with Verizon than the rest. > > My own experience is that all major carriers are roughly comparable in terms > of customer satisfaction, that differences are relatively small. I would disagree there. I have some friends who swear Cingular is "alright" if you don't have to call them ... but watch out if you do. I have heard this about Verizon as well when it comes to billing. >>Sprint PCS >>has a few more holes in the system, probably to be expected on PCS (requires a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > * Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts. > * Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts. All cells that overlap cause increases in noise, and thus generally reduce the number of concurrent calls and total bandwidth available. However CDMA has the ability to communicate with multiple towers simultaneously during a call, where GSM must hand-off between individual towers. CDMA is simply more efficient with bandwidth, and has greater error correction, both of which means more calls in similar RF conditions. > It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range for 1900, > and then only when range is limited only by power (not by terrain). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > * CDMA cell "breathing" can result in degraded quality and dropped calls. cell breathing is the result of decreased SNR. With GSM, you get whole channels. With CDMA it works more like IP packets. Essentially, what this means is that with an decreased SNR amounts to a reduced radius of coverage with CDMA. THe SNR is caused by call volume. With GSM, you simply run out of channels and callers get "no service". The overall number of users possible on a CDMA system is larger than is possible on GSM due to the finer resolutions of data transfer capable with CDMA. > * TDMA (GSM) can drop calls when moving to a cell running at full capacity. > > This of course varies from location to location, but carriers work hard to > minimize such problems, and both technologies work well in general. I indicate this above .. GSM and TDMA are simply out of channels. With CDMA, it is just a matter of noise (SNR). If there is a high enough SNR to send data at a fast enough rate to make a call, then you can connect. >>Verizon offers CDMA, which makes better use of >>available bandwidth, > > The difference is small, and irrelevant from a subscriber standpoint. Care to back that up? Remember to use a recent number, as CDMA 1x Voice is the current deployement and all but the oldest of CDMA phones use it. GSM is ancient technology that didn't anticipate the data resolutions possible in later technology that CDMA utilizes. > As of a couple of years ago, Verizon actually had the least spectrum per > subscriber of the major carriers, and Cingular gained considerable spectrum > and favorable tower locations as a result of the merger with ATTWS, but much > has changed since then, and I know of no reliable public data on the current > situation. Indeed ... but Verizon has agreements with many others, thus increasing the effective capacity, which is all that matters to the user. Do you really care if you are on Verizon's or Alltel's network as long as all the features exist for you (that is a big if)? >>The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... > > Another is the lack of mobile device flexibility as compared to the open > SIM-based GSM standard, as well as more limited device configuration. I think that really has less to do with CDMA and more to do with hardware implementation choices. >>they are notoriously >>expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spectrum, towers, etc.) as a result of the merger with ATTWS. (As the > smallest of the major carriers, T-Mobile is still buying market share.) Yes, they are the top dog by sheer numbers of customers. However, take a look at other things, like attrition of the market. Mergers have immediate effects on numbers, but equilibrium is where the numbers have true meaning. BTW ... you are clearly a Cingular supporter, absolutely no doubt judging by your comments here. I don't advise denying that in the future. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > BTW ... you are clearly a Cingular supporter, absolutely no doubt > judging by your comments here. I don't advise denying that in the > future. Oh, Thomas, that was priceless. A waste of time, but priceless nonetheless. <g> SignatureMike >In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You are a naturally distrustful person apparently. I think it's more a case of being realistic. >It is entirely within the >realm of reason that a company will conduct such "polling" or review so that >they can maintain the quality of their product. Bias is hard to avoid even when there isn't a vested interest in the outcome. >It is a truly self-serving >interest as to why they do it. My own experience is that very few companies are that objective. >In that case, the information is as accurate >as they need it to be and would serve no purpose to have it skewed. I am not >saying that is the case in general, but I do believe that is the reasoning >behind Verizon's field trucks checking coverage and call quality. Looks like a big budget ad campaign to me, which pretty much eviscerates the case for objectivity. >> * I don't put much stock in surveys and polls paid for by the entity >> benefitting from the results. > >My comments above apply here as well. Mine too. >> * I take with a grain of salt surveys and polls with poor methodology; e.g., >> small sample size; self-selected (non-random) sample; non-uniform universe; >> low response rate; no assessment of non-response bias. > >Your assumption is that a given test did not have such assessments, when in >fact, all you really know is that you don't have that information. That's the only safe assumption that can be made. >> * I take note of the margin of error. > >As should everybody. All too many don't. >>>From a personal >>>perspective, I know more people happy with Verizon than the rest. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I would disagree there. ... Fair enough. >>>Sprint PCS >>>has a few more holes in the system, probably to be expected on PCS (requires a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >All cells that overlap cause increases in noise, and thus generally reduce the >number of concurrent calls and total bandwidth available. That only applies to CDMA -- TDMA (which includes GSM) uses dedicated time slots. >However CDMA has >the ability to communicate with multiple towers simultaneously during a call, >where GSM must hand-off between individual towers. CDMA also requires hand-offs, just differently. >CDMA is simply more >efficient with bandwidth, and has greater error correction, both of which >means more calls in similar RF conditions. As I wrote, the difference (as measured in Erlangs) is relatively small. From one of my past posts: Unlike a TDMA/GSM network, a CDMA network is interference-limited rather than bandwidth-limited, and the Erlang capacity is calculated according to the probability of blocking by the network, i.e., the probability that a new mobile is denied access to the network. The problem is that CDMA Erlang numbers don't take into account the quality/usability of the call. CDMA networks can be loaded to the point where quality is truly horrible, whereas TDMA/GSM networks guarantee bandwidth to every call. Real world RF interference further muddies the water. The result is that claimed Erlangs (call capacity metrics) for CDMA networks tend to be unrealistic (some would say wildly unrealistic); i.e., they are not directly comparable to the capacity of GSM networks. When CDMA calls are limited to those with quality comparable to GSM, then capacity is roughly comparable. Contrary to the claims of CDMA boosters, there is no magic.(c) Some time ago, Chris Pearson, Executive Vice President, 3G Americas, wrote: Many CDMA operators are currently in the midst of deploying 1XRTT, AN INTERIM STEP TOWARDS 3G that promises to use spectrum more efficiently. Time will tell whether that is the truth but the fact is that, based on best-case data from CDMA vendors, 1XRTT with EVRC handles up to 156 Erlangs per sector. Bearing in mind that GSM with AMR handles 142 Erlangs, it is a great stretch to argue that 1XRTT has a major advantage over GSM. GSM operators also can deploy dynamic frequency and channel allocation (DFCA), which assigns calls to channels based on conditions such as signal and interference. With AMR and DFCA, GSM can handle 170 Erlangs per sector - an improvement on 1XRTTs 156. [emphasis added] In the near future, 1XRTT operators will probably be able to deploy a technology called selective mode vocoder (SMV), which could provide 20% more capacity over EVRC. The catch is that SMV-like methods can be applied to GSM to produce almost identical capacity gains. Thus, while one technology may have slightly higher capacity gains at one point in time, another technology is always preparing to leap-frog over it. >> Both GSM and CDMA have pros and cons; e.g., >> >> * CDMA cell "breathing" can result in degraded quality and dropped calls. > >cell breathing is the result of decreased SNR. With GSM, you get whole >channels. Time slots. >With CDMA it works more like IP packets. CDMA is actually quite different from IP packets, which is why cell "breathing" is an issue. >Essentially, what this >means is that with an decreased SNR amounts to a reduced radius of coverage >with CDMA. THe SNR is caused by call volume. Essentially correct. >With GSM, you simply run out of >channels and callers get "no service". Again, time slots. >The overall number of users possible >on a CDMA system is larger than is possible on GSM due to the finer >resolutions of data transfer capable with CDMA. That's not the actual difference, but again, the difference in capacity is relatively small, and irrelevant to subscribers. >> * TDMA (GSM) can drop calls when moving to a cell running at full capacity. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >it is just a matter of noise (SNR). If there is a high enough SNR to send >data at a fast enough rate to make a call, then you can connect. Sure, but the CDMA connection can be horribly unusable, making the difference moot. (I speak from considerable personal experience. Since network busy isn't a significant problem, I'd personally rather have dedicated time slot, but as always, YMMV.) >>>Verizon offers CDMA, which makes better use of >>>available bandwidth, >> >> The difference is small, and irrelevant from a subscriber standpoint. > >Care to back that up? ... See above for the first part. The second part is patently clear. >> As of a couple of years ago, Verizon actually had the least spectrum per >> subscriber of the major carriers, and Cingular gained considerable spectrum [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >if you are on Verizon's or Alltel's network as long as all the features exist >for you (that is a big if)? Doesn't work that way -- roaming is only permitted in areas where there is no native network coverage, not as a matter of capacity in native coverage areas. >>>The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I think that really has less to do with CDMA and more to do with hardware >implementation choices. [shrug] >>>they are notoriously >>>expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >at other things, like attrition of the market. Mergers have immediate effects >on numbers, but equilibrium is where the numbers have true meaning. Cingular is doing well by any reasonable measure. >BTW ... you are clearly a Cingular supporter, absolutely no doubt judging by >your comments here. I don't advise denying that in the future. Nonsense. You only discredit your own argument by claiming that facts contrary to your point of view much be biased. 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.' Not only that, but arguments over which is the "best" technology are pretty pointless from a subscriber point of view. All that matters is what works, and both technologies work quite well. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>You are a naturally distrustful person apparently. > > I think it's more a case of being realistic. Reading your comments below ... you are clearly the real Thomas and I am an imposter ... I do not hold the doubt and cynacism so close to my heart. >>It is entirely within the >>realm of reason that a company will conduct such "polling" or review so that >>they can maintain the quality of their product. > > Bias is hard to avoid even when there isn't a vested interest in the outcome. You have aggressively post editted my quote and removed all references to the fact that I am talking about Verizon here. Verizon is doing QC work with those mobile vans. The data has its marketting uses obviously, and they are using it. They do not hide the fact that they are the company gathering the information. As an informed consumer, I am surprised you take such a negative opinion of it. >>It is a truly self-serving >>interest as to why they do it. > > My own experience is that very few companies are that objective. It is their own QC data ... there is no point in doing QC work if you don't do it objectively. >>In that case, the information is as accurate >>as they need it to be and would serve no purpose to have it skewed. I am not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Looks like a big budget ad campaign to me, which pretty much eviscerates the > case for objectivity. Cynic. Cynic ... cynic! >>> * I take with a grain of salt surveys and polls with poor methodology; e.g., >>> small sample size; self-selected (non-random) sample; non-uniform universe; [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's the only safe assumption that can be made. Cynic! Why don't you try and find out if you want to know? >>> * I take note of the margin of error. >> >>As should everybody. > > All too many don't. Again, that is not a problem with the statistics, that is a problem with the people reading them. Period. It is NOT a problem with the company quoting them. >>All cells that overlap cause increases in noise, and thus generally reduce the >>number of concurrent calls and total bandwidth available. > > That only applies to CDMA -- TDMA (which includes GSM) uses dedicated time > slots. Of course they have dedicated time slots (that is what T stands for in TDMA ... GSM just has more of them and they number of slots varies during a call). The only way to overlap TDMA/GSM zones are to put them on different bands. CDMA does not have to worry about it. The interference caused by overlapping GSM/TDMA is absolute, so deployment is much more problematic. >>However CDMA has >>the ability to communicate with multiple towers simultaneously during a call, >>where GSM must hand-off between individual towers. > > CDMA also requires hand-offs, just differently. A phone can talk with two or three towers at the same time ... where one tower is dominant. Then, as the phone moves, tower dominance moves and eventually one tower ceases to communicate with the phone, at some point another tower is reached ... and the phone begins talking with it as well ... until the whole cycle starts again .. there is no *direct* handoff per se ... unless one were to cross a carrier boundry (not sure if that is even supported these days). >>CDMA is simply more >>efficient with bandwidth, and has greater error correction, both of which >>means more calls in similar RF conditions. > > As I wrote, the difference (as measured in Erlangs) is relatively small. From > one of my past posts: <snip<snip<snip<snip<snip<snip<snip<snip<snip> I challenge you to get real statistics on the call density of urban towers using CDMA. I have seen it widely reported that CDMA towers are getting higher call density. Verizon is known to limit the number of calls to a cap to avoid the severe call degradation that the snipped text mentions. At times though, it is better to make the call with a little lower voice quality than it is to not be able to make the call at all. Think about the performance of phones in Manhattan on 9/11. > Some time ago, Chris Pearson, Executive Vice President, 3G Americas, wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > AMR and DFCA, GSM can handle 170 Erlangs per sector - an improvement > on 1XRTT?s 156. [emphasis added] 1xRtt has been out for many years now. Now, what are the field results ... today, not at the time of that old text. > In the near future, 1XRTT operators will probably be able to deploy a > technology called selective mode vocoder (SMV), which could provide [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > point in time, another technology is always preparing to leap-frog > over it. Indeed ... so what are the real world results again? >>> Both GSM and CDMA have pros and cons; e.g., >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Time slots. Pardon me ... that is what I am referring too. Actually, CDMA allocates channels, but it can be several thousand in a minute where CDMA spreads its packets accross the entire available spectrum allocated at a given location. >>With CDMA it works more like IP packets. > > CDMA is actually quite different from IP packets, which is why cell > "breathing" is an issue. I understand perfectly why breathing occurs. The analogy is best described as noise ... as SNR drops the cell shrinks. The only way to make a call in this case is to increase signal (power) or to get closer (effectively increasing power). The IP packets I refer to have nothing to do with breathing. Voice is broken up into small "packets" and then the phone looks for an available channel and sends the "packet". The "breathing" you refer to is a result of spread spectrum and not the protocol directly. The protocol is only relavent in the fact that is is capable of working in a spread spectrum scenario ... it should be possible for the protocol to work fine over a different air interface, such as the timeslots used with GSM and TDMA. >>Essentially, what this >>means is that with an decreased SNR amounts to a reduced radius of coverage [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Again, time slots. Agreed. >>The overall number of users possible >>on a CDMA system is larger than is possible on GSM due to the finer >>resolutions of data transfer capable with CDMA. > > That's not the actual difference, but again, the difference in capacity is > relatively small, and irrelevant to subscribers. Actually, it is the difference. The "packet" of data sent in CDMA is smaller than that in GSM, thus, one can approach the theoretical limit more closely. > Sure, but the CDMA connection can be horribly unusable, making the difference > moot. (I speak from considerable personal experience. Since network busy > isn't a significant problem, I'd personally rather have dedicated time slot, > but as always, YMMV.) Yes, but the horribly unusable really occurs after the same situation applied to GSM would result in no call at all. My point is that CDMA can get higher capacity. >>>>Verizon offers CDMA, which makes better use of >>>>available bandwidth, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > See above for the first part. The second part is patently clear. Again, what you posted is several years old. Still, having said that I would like to see real world statistics as to real capacities at real sites. I have read over and over that CDMA has been offering better capacity, which is major (but not only) reason why Vodofone(?) has not forced Verizon to convert to GSM like the rest of its companies use. >>> As of a couple of years ago, Verizon actually had the least spectrum per >>> subscriber of the major carriers, and Cingular gained considerable spectrum [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Doesn't work that way -- roaming is only permitted in areas where there is no > native network coverage, not as a matter of capacity in native coverage areas. Sure it does. If you ask a user, are you happy and that user answers yes, then they are doing something correctly. If they are doing it by making an agreement with local provider XYZ to offer seamless coverage ... then it is effective. >>>>The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > [shrug] Shrug if you like. GSM doesn't mean SIM. GSM CAN be implemented without SIMs and CDMA CAN be implemented with SIMs. They are independent technologies that are traditionally used together. >>Yes, they are the top dog by sheer numbers of customers. However, take a look >>at other things, like attrition of the market. Mergers have immediate effects [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > pretty pointless from a subscriber point of view. All that matters is what > works, and both technologies work quite well. Hehe ... I will leave that to the audience .. but I have watched you respond here over the last couple of days, to me and to others, and it is nearly always in support of Cingular in an argument against them ... except perhaps for their claim of the lowest number of dropped calls. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >Reading your comments below ... you are clearly the real Thomas and I am an >imposter ... I do not hold the doubt and cynacism so close to my heart. You hold the ad hominems instead. >You have aggressively post editted my quote and removed all references to the >fact that I am talking about Verizon here. Verizon is doing QC work with >those mobile vans. The data has its marketting uses obviously, and they are >using it. They do not hide the fact that they are the company gathering the >information. As an informed consumer, I am surprised you take such a negative >opinion of it. That's a joke -- right? >> My own experience is that very few companies are that objective. > >It is their own QC data ... there is no point in doing QC work if you don't do >it objectively. That's another joke -- right? >> Looks like a big budget ad campaign to me, which pretty much eviscerates the >> case for objectivity. > >Cynic. Cynic ... cynic! Realist. >The only way to overlap TDMA/GSM zones are to put them on different bands. >CDMA does not have to worry about it. The interference caused by overlapping >GSM/TDMA is absolute, so deployment is much more problematic. Not true. Learn more about antenna design. >>>With CDMA it works more like IP packets. >> >> CDMA is actually quite different from IP packets, which is why cell >> "breathing" is an issue. > >I understand perfectly why breathing occurs. ... Not if you think it's "like IP packets". >> That's not the actual difference, but again, the difference in capacity is >> relatively small, and irrelevant to subscribers. > >Actually, it is the difference. The "packet" of data sent in CDMA is smaller >than that in GSM, thus, one can approach the theoretical limit more closely. Nope. I'm not going to waste any more time here on a pointless and meaningless CDMA is better than GSM flame war. So knock yourself out, and have the last word. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Did I say that? No. But to be (even more) clear: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > saying that is the case in general, but I do believe that is the reasoning > behind Verizon's field trucks checking coverage and call quality. This is all true, but the reason that they make a big deal about it is because the results turned out favorably for them. If they had done poorly in coverage, then they would obviously not used the results as the basis for an advertising campaign. Clearly the other carriers do coverage checking too, but they don't want to use the results of their tests in an ad campaign, for obvious reasons. Verizon was emboldened to use their test results by the corroboration from independent sources, since they now can point to the other surveys as proof that their tests were fair. What Cingular is doing with Telephia may trick some naive buyers, but it also has the opposite effect on buyers that actually dissect ads. It's always interesting when a company tries to focus on one unprovable and irrational premise as a basis for promoting their product, and to look at the contortions they go through, and the weasel words they use. Sprint's "The Largest All Digital Network" campaign was beautiful, as the effectively eliminated Verizon and Cingular from the competition. Cingular's attempt to equate the number of dropped calls with the best network is so transparently false, that you have to wonder at the desperation that made them say this. Yet many people don't realize that with Cingular, the fact that you can't even begin a call in a lot of areas that have have Verizon or Sprint coverage, means that you'll have fewer calls to drop in the first place. Anyone that reads the inpdendent surveys realizes this, but the informed consumer is not Cingular's target market. >> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> Did I say that? No. But to be (even more) clear: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >since they now can point to the other surveys as proof that their tests >were fair. Nonsense. Because it's so easy to structure tests to produce a desired result, there's simply no way that any tests done in house can be considered objective and/or reliable. In house tests, like those relied on by Verizon, are the least credible form of evidence. >[SNIP usual flaming of Cingular] Your personal vendetta continues. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I am sure you do. So, you discredit most surveys and polls? From a personal > perspective, I know more people happy with Verizon than the rest. Yes, and all the unbiased polls and surveys back up you experience. We're not talking about polls and surveys paid for by the carrier either, but surveys with a very large sample size, excellent methodology, and a reputation for honesty. The Consumer Reports poll was especially well done, with large numbers of responses for each carrier in each region. Most people discount surveys that are done by, or paid for by the entity that does the best in the survey, except when there is independent corroboration. > Sprint PCS > has a few more holes in the system, probably to be expected on PCS (requires a > denser tower distribution). In an urban setting it's not an issue, though out in the 'burbs it's definitely a problem both for T-Mobile and Sprint PCS. I'm always amused when these carriers show up at a planning commission meeting in my city, and have to explain why they need towers in areas that the other carriers don't need them. They have to be careful not to say too much, because they don't want to let on that the 800 Mhz carriers have much better coverage, but at the same time they have to state the real reasons. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it, except that a friend of mine has been fighting a tower behind his house for years (first it was a Cingular tower, now it's a T-Mobile tower). > The GSM carriers tend to have more trouble with > cutting out and dropped calls, again, this is my experience from people I have > personally dealt with. It's inherent in GSM technology to drop calls if the cell you're moving into has no more capacity. With CDMA, the quality will decrease as the compression increases. However, at least where I am, the GSM capacity issues have been solved for at least the last two years. There are still a lot of coverage issues with GSM in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is one reason why Cingular has always done so poorly in all the surveys. I have a Cingular phone on an MVNO, and it's useless in many parts of the Bay Area that are on the outskirts of cities. > Verizon offers CDMA, which makes better use of > available bandwidth, they cover both 800MHz and some 1900MHz as well as own a > huge base of licensed spectrum (or they have agreements in place), and couple > that with proper tower saturation and excellent customer support and I have a > hard time believing that anybody will beat them on quality and satisfaction > alone. The bandwidth issue with GSM isn't as bad as it once was, due to CoDecs that do more compression (at the expense of voice quality). > The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... they are notoriously > expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. They are not any more expensive than Cingular or Sprint for most plans. For me, not only was the base rate the lowest at the time, but there are many discounts. Also, I have 8:01 p.m. nights, which saves money on Intra-LATA calls, and that hour is a big help as I can call people back east at 11:00 p.m. but midnight is a bit late. Up until recently, Verizon also had holiday off-peak, they were the last carrier to drop holidays as off-peak hours. Besides the surveys, look at what has happened to stores that stopped selling Verizon. Radio Shack's recent problems were directly caused by the switch from Cingular to Verizon, and the tremendous drop in wireless sales that resulted. Clearly there are a lot more wireless customers that understand the difference in quality of service than Radio Shack banked on. In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: >> The GSM carriers tend to have more trouble with >> cutting out and dropped calls, again, this is my experience from people I have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have a Cingular phone on an MVNO, and it's useless in many parts of > the Bay Area that are on the outskirts of cities. CDMA compression doesn't change, the noise increases do to more phone chatter. It is like walking into a room where there are 20 people talking at the same time at the same volume. It can be hard to hear what the one person you are talking to is saying. But, if you remove the other 19 people in the room, you can hear just fine. Essentially, your choice is to talk louder (not allowed to boost the power on CDMA phones beyond the required limit (what is it 0.2W?) or you can move closer (effectively reducing the noise). With GSM ... there are just 20 cups and 10 pieces of string and each call may use one or more cups ... so if all the cups are in use at the same time, then the call can not be initiated ... or if a site handoff is occurring, it may result in a dropped call. >> Verizon offers CDMA, which makes better use of >> available bandwidth, they cover both 800MHz and some 1900MHz as well as own a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The bandwidth issue with GSM isn't as bad as it once was, due to CoDecs > that do more compression (at the expense of voice quality). That doesn't change the bandwidth at all, that changes the codec. You can use the same codecs with CDMA you want. >> The big disclaimer I see with Verizon is cost ... they are notoriously >> expensive, but now I see Cingular has headed in that direction as well. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Verizon also had holiday off-peak, they were the last carrier to drop > holidays as off-peak hours. Check out a previous post of mine on this matter. Most people I have talked with agree that Verizon costs more, but most that are Verizon customers simply tell me that "it is worth it". I for one have priced my required features and Verizon comes up higher than ALL other carriers available to me. I still intend to move with them at some point in the future if Sprint doesn't start filling rural holes (meaning in-building coverage). My Verizon counter-part in the small town I currently work gets coverage fine with Verizon but I am always at one or zero bars ... requiring the antenna to make clear calls. My previous employer, the problem was worse and I actually frequently missed calls while my Verizon counterparts had full bars ... that was in a the large Twin Cities suburb of Eden Prairie. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >CDMA compression doesn't change, the noise increases do to more phone chatter. >It is like walking into a room where there are 20 people talking at the same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to boost the power on CDMA phones beyond the required limit (what is it 0.2W?) >or you can move closer (effectively reducing the noise). Or you get sound so bad you can't understand the person at the other end, or you lose the call altogether due to cell "shrinkage." >With GSM ... there >are just 20 cups and 10 pieces of string and each call may use one or more >cups ... so if all the cups are in use at the same time, then the call can not >be initiated ... or if a site handoff is occurring, it may result in a dropped >call. Possible, but capacity is almost never an issue, and there's no risk of being dropped due to cell "shrinkage." >That doesn't change the bandwidth at all, that changes the codec. You can use >the same codecs with CDMA you want. Only in theory. In practice GSM and CDMA use different codecs. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >... The Consumer Reports poll was >especially well done, with large numbers of responses for each carrier >in each region. Not true. CU/CR suffers from non-random, self-selected sampling, plus low sample sizes when broken down. It also suffers from lumping different technologies together (D-AMPS and GSM in the case of Cingular, CDMA and iDEN in the case of Sprint-Nextel), which isn't a meaningful measure of either, since it's roughly comparable to saying the average person has one testicle. >Most people discount surveys that are done by, or paid for by the entity >that does the best in the survey, ... Like Verizon. >> Sprint PCS >> has a few more holes in the system, probably to be expected on PCS (requires a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >better coverage, but at the same time they have to state the real >reasons. ... More nonsense(tm). 800/850 and 1900 have essentially the same coverage in metro areas (where spacing is less than maximum in order to increase network capacity), and the difference (due to lower permitted power for 1900) is relatively small even in non-metro areas. >It's inherent in GSM technology to drop calls if the cell you're moving >into has no more capacity. True, but rare. >With CDMA, the quality will decrease as the >compression increases. It's inherent in GSM technology to drop calls if the cell load increases and you're near the limit of cell coverage. Again true, but rare. >However, at least where I am, the GSM capacity >issues have been solved for at least the last two years. There are still >a lot of coverage issues with GSM in the San Francisco Bay Area, which >is one reason why Cingular has always done so poorly in all the surveys. Also not true. As a result of the ATTWS merger, Cingular now has arguably the best network in the San Francisco Bay Area. >I have a Cingular phone on an MVNO, and it's useless in many parts of >the Bay Area that are on the outskirts of cities. Then, assuming you're not making that up too, your phone is either ancient or defective. >The bandwidth issue with GSM isn't as bad as it once was, due to CoDecs >that do more compression (at the expense of voice quality). More nonsense(tm). GSM sound quality is as good or better than CDMA. >Besides the surveys, look at what has happened to stores that stopped >selling Verizon. Radio Shack's recent problems were directly caused by >the switch from Cingular to Verizon, and the tremendous drop in wireless >sales that resulted. ... More nonsense(tm). Radio Shack's problems, which actually began last year with Verizon, are due to its own poor management, as evidenced by its CEO scandal. Cingular is actually part of its solution, not the cause of its problems. That Radio Shack is continuing to struggle is no great surprise. SignatureBest 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] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > since it's roughly comparable to saying the average person has one > testicle. Says who? You? >>Most people discount surveys that are done by, or paid for by the entity >>that does the best in the survey, ... > > Like Verizon. And Cingular. > Also not true. As a result of the ATTWS merger, Cingular now has arguably > the > best network in the San Francisco Bay Area. Says who? You? No survey done to date backs up this laughable claim. >>I have a Cingular phone on an MVNO, and it's useless in many parts of >>the Bay Area that are on the outskirts of cities. > > Then, assuming you're not making that up too, your phone is either ancient > or > defective. Or, the network sucks. >>The bandwidth issue with GSM isn't as bad as it once was, due to CoDecs >>that do more compression (at the expense of voice quality). > > More nonsense(tm). GSM sound quality is as good or better than CDMA. Rubbish. >>Besides the surveys, look at what has happened to stores that stopped >>selling Verizon. Radio Shack's recent problems were directly caused by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > problems. That Radio Shack is continuing to struggle is no great > surprise. According to who? You? > "John Navas 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." >> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Says who? You? Clearly he has no understanding of statistical sampling. The CU sample size was very large, even when divided by region and again by carrier. Any bias due to it being a subset of CR subscribers cancels itself out, unless someone believes that users of different carriers have different standards for acceptable quality, coverage, and customer service, and no one believes that to be the case. As to GSM versus TDMA/AMPS, Cingular has stated that very few users are still on TDMA/AMPS, but TDMA/AMPS user responses would boost Cingular's score if anything, since TDMA/AMPS provides much more coverage. >>> Most people discount surveys that are done by, or paid for by the entity >>> that does the best in the survey, ... >> Like Verizon. > > And Cingular. Of course Navas did his usual creative editing. People discount surveys done by the entity that did the survey _unless_ there is independent corroboration. For the Telephia survey there is no corroboration, for the Verizon survey you have at least two corroborative sources. >> Also not true. As a result of the ATTWS merger, Cingular now has arguably >> the >> best network in the San Francisco Bay Area. > > Says who? You? No survey done to date backs up this laughable claim. He made it up, or he read it on a bus shelter. I saw it on a bus shelter in San Francisco on Sunday. >>> I have a Cingular phone on an MVNO, and it's useless in many parts of >>> the Bay Area that are on the outskirts of cities. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or, the network sucks. The phone works just fine in urban areas, and in the 'burbs. Where it doesn't work is on the urban fringe, in the parks and hills surrounding the Bay Area. GSM coverage in these areas is poor to non-existent. >> "John Navas 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." To the contrary, everyone expects it. >>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] <<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> I have a Cingular phone on an MVNO, and it's useless in many parts of >>>> the Bay Area that are on the outskirts of cities. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > doesn't work is on the urban fringe, in the parks and hills surrounding > the Bay Area. GSM coverage in these areas is poor to non-existent. I have determined the following from John's posts: Cingular has great coverage. The problem is that many Cingular phones are defective and ancient which creates the illusion that their network is bad. If all Cingular customers had a GOOD phone like John then there would not be the reports of problems which John never seems to experience. >>> "John Navas 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." > > To the contrary, everyone expects it. > I have determined the following from John's posts: > Cingular has great coverage. The problem is that many Cingular phones are > defective and ancient which creates the illusion that their network is bad. > If all Cingular customers had a GOOD phone like John then there would not be > the reports of problems which John never seems to experience. Very funny. Of course most people don't have ancient phones, mine certainly isn't. I guess it's possible that Nokia, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, etc., save all their defective GSM phones for Cingular, and Navas hasn't experienced this because he buys unlocked GSM phones from other sources. I always buy phones with reception being a top priority, and useless crap like cameras being very low priority. >> I have determined the following from John's posts: >> Cingular has great coverage. The problem is that many Cingular phones are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I always buy phones with reception being a top priority, and useless >crap like cameras being very low priority. The more things there are the more things to break..... >> I always buy phones with reception being a top priority, and useless >> crap like cameras being very low priority. > > The more things there are the more things to break..... It's not just that, it's that often the feature-laden phones are marketed based on all that junk, and the manufacturer skimps on what's really important. Phones are like insurance, whatever the carrier promotes the most, is probably the worst thing to buy. > Verizon takes pride in how it gathers this information. I once saw on > television what they do with those trucks. They have several phones hooked up > in vans which are automated. The driver drives from place to place and they > check coverage. Simple. Yeah, I saw that same show. However I recall that someone complained that they used external antennas on the van, which was unrealistic, though it would have the same advantage for any carrier's phone that they were testing. The Cingular test was so bogus that even the company that they paid to do the test had to issue a statement that disputed Cingular's claims. I don't ever recall something like that happening before. Of course, technically Cingular never claimed to have the best coverage, they just claimed to have the fewest dropped calls, and those are unrelated metrics. Remember Sprint's ads claiming the largest all-digital network (well yeah, the only all-digital competitor is T-Mobile). > |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message