Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / December 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

AT&T Spokesperson Complains about Latest Consumer Reports Survey

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 00:37 GMT
Verizon and Alltel (soon to be Verizon) ranked first in 23 of 23 cities.

"An AT&T spokesman tells Mercury News their poor ratings are because the
Consumer Reports study is "based on anecdotal feedback from a
self-selected group of subscribers," even though similar studies by
firms like JD Power rank AT&T as mediocre to poor in everything from
call quality to customer care."

Okay, so let's get this straight--only dissatisfied AT&T customers
choose to fill out the survey, while only satisfied Verizon and Alltel
customers choose to fill out the survey, LOL. Why didn't the
spokesperson say something like 'we're aware of the issues and are
working to resolve them,' rather than blaming the messenger?

"Sprint-Nextel ranked last in 20 of the 23 cities surveyed, with only
AT&T ranking behind Sprint in New York, San Francisco and Miami."

Geez, to be ranked worst than Sprint is the ultimate insult. It's true
that AT&T service in the San Francisco Bay area is quite poor, probably
due to the terrain, and the difficulty of deploying additional cells
which they need to compensate for the GSM technology they use.

Sprint didn't even get enough NYC subscribers to return surveys to even
be ranked in NYC (if Consumer Reports doesn't get enough surveys to have
a statistically accurate result then they leave out the result for that
carrier in that city).

"http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/154784/verizon_trounces_competitio
n_in_wireless_quality.html
"
"http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Tops-Consumer-Reports-Wireless-Satisf
action-Ratings-99423?nocomment=1
"
"http://www.thestreet.com/story/10450680/1/survey-finds-cell-phone-satisfaction.html"
The Bob - 03 Dec 2008 00:40 GMT
> Sprint didn't even get enough NYC subscribers to return surveys to
> even be ranked in NYC (if Consumer Reports doesn't get enough surveys
> to have a statistically accurate result then they leave out the result
> for that carrier in that city).

And this statement is a clear indication of why the survey is flawed.  When
the number three carrier is left off the survey for statistical purposes,
it indicates a huge problem with the sample.
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 01:17 GMT
> And this statement is a clear indication of why the survey is flawed.  When
> the number three carrier is left off the survey for statistical purposes,
> it indicates a huge problem with the sample.

Yet statistically it's a very large sample size with a very small margin
of error. What the survey indicates is that Sprint hemorrhaged so many
subscribers that they're becoming irrelevant in some markets. Consumer
Reports would rather leave out a carrier than to present data with a
high margin of error.

The J.D. Power survey showed essentially the same results as the
Consumer Reports survey, see
"http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008120"
"http://www.jdpower.com/telecom/articles/2008-Wireless-Call-Quality-Volume-2"

Regionally, local independent studies also mirror the Consumer Reports
results.

It's interesting that J.D. Power also highlighted the advantages that
CDMA provides to carriers in terms of doing better in the rankings,
something that's been known to communications experts for a long time,
but that the CDMA carriers don't tout in their advertising because they
don't think consumers will understand the technical advantages.

“CDMA technology is generally considered to be more efficient for
processing wireless calls, as it requires fewer cell sites to handle
call volume compared with other wireless platforms,” said Kirk Parsons,
senior director of wireless services at J.D. Power and Associates.
“Additionally, major service providers that use the CDMA platform, such
as Alltel and Verizon Wireless, typically perform better, with fewer
initial disconnects, more on-time text messages, and less interference
and static.”
The Bob - 03 Dec 2008 02:12 GMT
>> And this statement is a clear indication of why the survey is flawed.
>>  When the number three carrier is left off the survey for statistical
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> margin of error. What the survey indicates is that Sprint hemorrhaged
> so many subscribers that they're becoming irrelevant in some markets.

Wow, Steve- I see you still have that hard-on for Sprint Nextel.  Some
things never change.

Now I'll leave it up to you to educate the rest of us on exactly which
markets Sprint has become more irrelevent than T-Mobile.  Facts would be
nice, rather than your biased and uninformed opinions.

And when you are unable to provide facts to back up your senseless claim?  
Then you might want to refrain from such buffoonery as you demonstrated
above.
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 09:57 GMT
>>> And this statement is a clear indication of why the survey is flawed.
>>>  When the number three carrier is left off the survey for statistical
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Wow, Steve- I see you still have that hard-on for Sprint Nextel.  Some
> things never change.

Huh? I've never used Sprint/Nextel, though my wife has a Nextel from
work. When she's on call, and we're out in an iDEN area, she has to give
out her personal cell phone number, but I certainly don't hold that
against Sprint's native PCS system.

> Now I'll leave it up to you to educate the rest of us on exactly which
> markets Sprint has become more irrelevent than T-Mobile.

It's not up to me, or any of the rest of us here, to educate you. You
have to do that yourself. You can start by reading every independent
survey on coverage and quality, then continue by looking at the net
gains for each carrier each quarter. It'll be better for you to do it
yourself because then you can't complain about anyone's words when they
quote sources.

IMVAIO, Sprint could choose to turn things around for themselves, at
least in terms of postpaid subscriber losses, but doing so would reduce
their ARPU, which is higher than other carriers due to Nextel. So far,
Sprint has not shown any inclination to adopt policies that would
encourage more additions, quite the opposite. I.e., Sprint recently said
that they would raise prices on all contracts on January 1st 2009, by
increasing the non-governmental "Administrative Fee." Amusingly, what
they've done is to give subscribers a way out of their contracts with no
ETF fee,
"http://consumerist.com/5098064/reader-escapes-sprint-with-no-etf-thanks-to-admin
-fee-increase
"
Ron - 03 Dec 2008 11:06 GMT
>>>> And this statement is a clear indication of why the survey is flawed.
>>>>  When the number three carrier is left off the survey for statistical
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>ETF fee,
>"http://consumerist.com/5098064/reader-escapes-sprint-with-no-etf-thanks-to-admin
-fee-increase
"

And of course Sprint will incorrectly tell their CSRs to deny that one
can do that.
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 14:47 GMT
> And of course Sprint will incorrectly tell their CSRs to deny that one
> can do that.

True, subscribers will have to willing to press the issue. The carrier
will count on people beeing Sheeple.
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 14:51 GMT
> And of course Sprint will incorrectly tell their CSRs to deny that one
> can do that.

Unless the mainstream media picks up on this, and massive numbers of
people cancel, Sprint still comes out way ahead. A couple of thousand
people may learn about this and cancel, but tens of millions will simply
pay the increased fees without protest.

They should be required to inform their subscribers of their right to
cancel without an ETF.
The Bob - 04 Dec 2008 04:03 GMT
>>>> And this statement is a clear indication of why the survey is
>>>> flawed.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> give out her personal cell phone number, but I certainly don't hold
> that against Sprint's native PCS system.

But you have gone out of your way in the past to bash them, based on
your'valued' opinion on a very public website that you owned, didn't
you?  I even remember one time when you changed the content of the
website to contain much more negative information about a carrier
because of an argument you were having in these newsgroups, and did it
simply to show your balls off to a bunch of people who didn't care.  I
find it interesting that you formed such outlandish and baseless
opinions without ever using the product.   I find it even more
interesting that the website 'disappeared not too much later. A little
too much heat from someone's legal department?

>> Now I'll leave it up to you to educate the rest of us on exactly
>> which markets Sprint has become more irrelevent than T-Mobile.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> yourself because then you can't complain about anyone's words when
> they quote sources.

Don't move the goalpost, Stevie.  You said that "what the survey
indicates is that Sprint hemorrhaged so many subscribers that they're
becoming irrelevant in some markets."  I'm simply asking you to back up
your mouth with facts.  That's the way it works- you try to camoflage
opinion as fact, and somebody that sees through the ruse, calls you on
it and asks for real facts.

> IMVAIO,

There's your first mistake- you have no valued opinion on the subject

> Sprint could choose to turn things around for themselves, at
> least in terms of postpaid subscriber losses, but doing so would
> reduce their ARPU, which is higher than other carriers due to Nextel.
> So far, Sprint has not shown any inclination to adopt policies that
> would encourage more additions,

Really?  They offer Tech support in more comapny-owned stores than any
of the other carriers, now show you exactly how your new phone works and
program it for you IN THE STORE, and offer price plans that are far more
attractive than the competition.  They have adopted tenured customer
'perks' and are much more liberal with handset upgrades than the other
carriers.  ANd while their numbers may be the lowest of any particular
survey, almost every article mentioning those surveys points out that
while being last, Sprint has made the largest improvements of the
carriers surveyed and is closing the gap.  Wow- all that research I did
last month is sarting to pay off!  Try it sometime.

Pray tell, Mr. Scharf, what would you propose they do?

quite the opposite. I.e., Sprint
> recently said that they would raise prices on all contracts on January
> 1st 2009, by increasing the non-governmental "Administrative Fee."
> Amusingly, what they've done is to give subscribers a way out of their
> contracts with no ETF fee,
> "http://consumerist.com/5098064/reader-escapes-sprint-with-no-etf-thank
> s-to-admin-fee-increase"

And most of them will gladly stick around, because the value ratio of
the carrier remains the same.  And in today's economy, the thought of
spending money to replace a phone that is working as described over an
extra dollar or two a month just isn't going to happen.  You need to
leave your little apartment more often and get out in the real world.
Anon E. Muss - 07 Dec 2008 06:16 GMT
>It's interesting that J.D. Power also highlighted the advantages that
>CDMA provides to carriers in terms of doing better in the rankings,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>initial disconnects, more on-time text messages, and less interference
>and static.”

And AT&T's 3G is (W)CDMA.
SMS - 07 Dec 2008 18:43 GMT
>> It's interesting that J.D. Power also highlighted the advantages that
>> CDMA provides to carriers in terms of doing better in the rankings,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> And AT&T's 3G is (W)CDMA.

That's true, but the big advantage of CDMA is seen in voice coverage.
Dennis Ferguson - 08 Dec 2008 00:04 GMT
>>> It's interesting that J.D. Power also highlighted the advantages that
>>> CDMA provides to carriers in terms of doing better in the rankings,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> That's true, but the big advantage of CDMA is seen in voice coverage.

I guess so, but if your AT&T phone connects to AT&T's 3G network
it should be using it for voice as well as data.  If (W)CDMA
helps then it should be helping AT&T's 3G customers.

Dennis Ferguson
Ron - 03 Dec 2008 02:15 GMT
>> Sprint didn't even get enough NYC subscribers to return surveys to
>> even be ranked in NYC (if Consumer Reports doesn't get enough surveys
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>the number three carrier is left off the survey for statistical purposes,
>it indicates a huge problem with the sample.

The sample in that city only. Or maybe it means Sprint has way fewer
customers there.

Face it Consumer Reports results match JD Power, and the Yankee Group
results year anfter year; and Sprints continuing decline in its
customer base says as much as the surveys do. Sprint is in a death
Spriral.
Mike Jacoubowsky - 03 Dec 2008 09:04 GMT
>>> Sprint didn't even get enough NYC subscribers to return surveys to
>>> even be ranked in NYC (if Consumer Reports doesn't get enough
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> customer base says as much as the surveys do. Sprint is in a death
> Spriral.

But something is seriously screwy if Sprint users comprise a significant
sample size (in the CR survey) in small markets, and yet somehow, in
perhaps the largest cell market in the country, do not. If it's an
indication of the relative weakness of Sprint in that market, I'd say
they're not in a death spiral, but already dead.

--Mike--     Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 16:13 GMT
> But something is seriously screwy if Sprint users comprise a significant
> sample size (in the CR survey) in small markets, and yet somehow, in
> perhaps the largest cell market in the country, do not. If it's an
> indication of the relative weakness of Sprint in that market, I'd say
> they're not in a death spiral, but already dead.

Sprint has no value proposition.

Look at the major carriers:

-Verizon has the best domestic coverage by a wide margin.

-AT&T boasts about their phones working in more places in the world,
something Verizon can't claim (except for a couple of models).

-T-Mobile give the most peak minutes for the money, though they could
also make the case about working in more countries than Verizon or Sprint.

What would cause someone to choose Sprint? Earlier off-peak start time?
For a while you could get good SERO plan for $30/month but now they've
discontinued that plan.

What happened to Sprint's "bet the company" on WiMax?
Paul Miner - 03 Dec 2008 17:42 GMT
>What happened to Sprint's "bet the company" on WiMax?

On track, from what I hear.

Signature

Paul Miner

Todd Allcock - 03 Dec 2008 18:29 GMT
> Sprint has no value proposition.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> For a while you could get good SERO plan for $30/month but now they've
> discontinued that plan.

I dunno- Sprint offers less crippled phones (Java apps will work on many
sprint phones- they didn't buy into BREW like Verizon) and Sprint roams on
Verizon and/or Alltel in many markets, giving them Verizon-level nationwide
coverage at lower than verizon prices.  Their data prices are lower than
Verizon's as well, IIRC.

> What happened to Sprint's "bet the company" on WiMax?

Slowly rolling out.  We'll see if it's in time to do them any good...
Mike Jacoubowsky - 04 Dec 2008 00:02 GMT
>> What would cause someone to choose Sprint? Earlier off-peak start
>> time? For a while you could get good SERO plan for $30/month but now
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Verizon-level nationwide coverage at lower than verizon prices.  Their
> data prices are lower than Verizon's as well, IIRC.

Sprint's marketing is highly suspect. Their $99/everything plan, I
think, scares people away. Most don't want to think that they're
spending anything close to that to get the features they need. It might
be a great deal for the really heavy user, but for the majority of folk,
I'll guess that $70/month seems like a fair amount of money, so claiming
that $99/month is a great deal doesn't sell.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
SMS - 04 Dec 2008 01:46 GMT
> Sprint's marketing is highly suspect. Their $99/everything plan, I
> think, scares people away. Most don't want to think that they're
> spending anything close to that to get the features they need. It might
> be a great deal for the really heavy user, but for the majority of folk,
> I'll guess that $70/month seems like a fair amount of money, so claiming
> that $99/month is a great deal doesn't sell.

But AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile also offer these sorts of plans, and
both charge significantly more than $99 for unlimited voice and data.
Sprint's voice-only plans are the same price as those from Verizon and AT&T.
Mike Jacoubowsky - 04 Dec 2008 02:06 GMT
>> Sprint's marketing is highly suspect. Their $99/everything plan, I
>> think, scares people away. Most don't want to think that they're
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Sprint's voice-only plans are the same price as those from Verizon and
> AT&T.

Correct, but do you *lead* with your most-expensive offering, or do you
promote more reasonably-priced plans (that offer less but are more in
line with what most people might need)?

If I'm trying to get people into the store to buy carbon-fiber Trek
bicycles, I don't target the ad at those very few who might buy the
top-of-the-line $8000 model. I'll aim for the $3000-$5000 range, where
the number of buyers will be many times what you have higher up. Plus,
targeting the high end can brand your product as being elitist, which
might be seen as desirable for some, but to me, it makes the product
less accessible to the typical cyclist. Other dealers will see things
differently, and target different customers. But Sprint doesn't have
that luxury.

If Sprint was running ads in business-oriented publications, yes, by all
means, go for the high-end! But for standard TV ads, I think they're
scaring people away by pushing their premium product.

This is just the way *I* see it. And I see things from a different
perspective than many, if not most. Not a better perspective; it's not
as if I have some great marketing wisdom that trumps the execs at phone
& airline companies. It just seems like that sometimes! :>)

It's real easy being a critic from the outside.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Todd Allcock - 04 Dec 2008 03:18 GMT
>>> Sprint's marketing is highly suspect. Their $99/everything plan, I
>>> think, scares people away. Most don't want to think that they're
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> promote more reasonably-priced plans (that offer less but are more in line
> with what most people might need)?

Perhaps due to using a DVR I don't see as many ads as I used to, but has
Sprint been pushing that plan much lately?  I saw a few ads about it when
they first offered it, but the only Sprint ads I've seen recently are the
CEO telling us just how golly gee-whiz amazing these new fangled cellphones
are, and promising me their employees will teach me how to use one if I buy
it.

> If Sprint was running ads in business-oriented publications, yes, by all
> means, go for the high-end! But for standard TV ads, I think they're
> scaring people away by pushing their premium product.

Probably, but that offering is fairly unique, and $99 isn't as much as it
used to be!  ;-)

Were it me, I'd push that $99 plan, and tag the ad with something like
"other plans starting at just $29.99..."

> This is just the way *I* see it. And I see things from a different
> perspective than many, if not most. Not a better perspective; it's not as
> if I have some great marketing wisdom that trumps the execs at phone &
> airline companies. It just seems like that sometimes! :>)

My businesses have always targeted lower-end customers, so my marketing
skills (as meager as they are) come from that perspective.  Pushing high-end
gives me the willies!  ;-)

> It's real easy being a critic from the outside.

Agreed.  Armchair quaterbacking carries very little risk of failure!
SMS - 04 Dec 2008 13:45 GMT
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message

> Correct, but do you *lead* with your most-expensive offering, or do you
> promote more reasonably-priced plans (that offer less but are more in
> line with what most people might need)?

Yeah, that's a good point. I think the carriers really were hoping that
their unlimited plans would be perceived as some sort of wonderful great
deal. I guess it is a good deal for those that spend their life on their
mobile phone, like real estate agents, or other mobile salespeople.

> it's not
> as if I have some great marketing wisdom that trumps the execs at phone
> & airline companies.

Don't put yourself down.
Todd Allcock - 04 Dec 2008 05:54 GMT
> But AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile also offer these sorts of plans,
> and both charge significantly more than $99 for unlimited voice and data.

Thus invalidating your earlier statement "Sprint has no value proposition"?
;-)
SMS - 04 Dec 2008 14:11 GMT
>> But AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile also offer these sorts of plans,
>> and both charge significantly more than $99 for unlimited voice and data.
>
> Thus invalidating your earlier statement "Sprint has no value proposition"?
>  ;-)

Yes, that's true. For unlimited, Sprint is a good deal, at least if you
have Sprint coverage.
The Bob - 04 Dec 2008 03:37 GMT
>> But something is seriously screwy if Sprint users comprise a
>> significant sample size (in the CR survey) in small markets, and yet
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Sprint has no value proposition.

Other than the largest coverage area in the US and lowest priced unlimited
all-you-can-eat plan?

> Look at the major carriers:
>
> -Verizon has the best domestic coverage by a wide margin.

Not in terms of coverage.

> -AT&T boasts about their phones working in more places in the world,
> something Verizon can't claim (except for a couple of models).

And something that 95% of those carrying US phones don't give a sh.t about.

> -T-Mobile give the most peak minutes for the money, though they could
> also make the case about working in more countries than Verizon or
> Sprint.

And working in the fewest places in the US- that's attractive.

> What would cause someone to choose Sprint? Earlier off-peak start
> time? For a while you could get good SERO plan for $30/month but now
> they've discontinued that plan.
>
> What happened to Sprint's "bet the company" on WiMax?

The merger closed last Friday.  It's been rolled out in Baltimore with more
markets announced for 1Q and a pop base of 140 million (?) covered by the
end of '09.  Anybody with even the faintest interest in the industry knows
both of those facts.

And I'm sorry, but Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are exactly where with 4G
rollout?  Hell, within a year, the 4G offering from Sprint will have better
coverage than the 3G offering from either AT&T or T-Mobile.

Your animosity is showing through again, Sharf.
Larry - 05 Dec 2008 00:06 GMT
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:UdyZk.8436$x%.6155
@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:

> What happened to Sprint's "bet the company" on WiMax?

First was the obstructionists:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-wimax-phobia-att-tries-to-
block-clearwirexohm-merger.html

Now the obstructionists' footdraggings are over:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335706,00.asp

It'll be now called "Clear", making it impossible to Google scan easily
for, of course.  How stupid.

Comcast, Google, Intel, Time Warner and Bright House Networks...little
mom and pop radio companies in small towns...have pitched in a few
bucks, $3.2B, to put up a few towers in a few places.  Android will be
incorporated into Clearwire offerings.  With Google forking over money,
you bet your a.s there'll be WiMax phones on the air real soon.

Notice the DATE of this deal is 12/01/08...3 days ago.

ATT, of course, is petrified....
"Earlier this year, AT&T reiterated its opposition to the Sprint-
Clearwire deal, calling it anti-competitive and accusing stakeholders of
providing inconsistent stats on how the initiative will affect the
wireless broadband marketplace. "

Wimax customers won't need landline phones or sellphones.  They'll be
using Skype...cheap.

Wimax is rolling out across the rest of the planet while the
obstructionists in the USA put us further and further behind, as usual.  
The rest of the planet can be watched from:
http://www.wimaxday.net/site/
watching small countries like Bahrain and Qatar impliment Wimax from
Vodaphone....
SMS - 05 Dec 2008 01:18 GMT
> Wimax customers won't need landline phones or sellphones.  They'll be
> using Skype...cheap.

Yeah, but WiMax isn't going to be cheap.

> Wimax is rolling out across the rest of the planet while the
> obstructionists in the USA put us further and further behind, as usual.  
> The rest of the planet can be watched from:
> http://www.wimaxday.net/site/
> watching small countries like Bahrain and Qatar impliment Wimax from
> Vodaphone....

I did see that Nokia now has an 810 with WiMax, so that should make you
happy.
The Bob - 05 Dec 2008 01:46 GMT
>> Wimax customers won't need landline phones or sellphones.  They'll be
>> using Skype...cheap.
>
> Yeah, but WiMax isn't going to be cheap.

Sounds like it'll be in the $65-70 range for unlimited plans.  Sounds
plenty cheap to me when compared to any other option.
Todd Allcock - 05 Dec 2008 01:50 GMT

> > Wimax customers won't need landline phones or sellphones.  They'll
> > be using Skype...cheap.
>
> Yeah, but WiMax isn't going to be cheap.

True.  After the introductory specials expire it looks like $45/month for
data cards, or $35 for fixed location modems.

Not significantly cheaper than cellular data's typical $50-60/month rates.
WiMax may be faster, but with the higher speed will come less ubiquity
(which will be fine for most people, but it differentiates the products
enough that cellular will likely feel no real pressure to lower prices
anytime soon.)


> I did see that Nokia now has an 810 with WiMax, so that should
> make you happy.

In a year, assuming Clear/Xohm/Insert-company-name-of-the-moment-here hits
their 140 million pop target, the 810 could actually function as a metro-
area "cellphone."  It'd probably approximate the metro-only style coverage
T-Mobile had up until a few years ago.
Larry - 05 Dec 2008 04:01 GMT
>> I did see that Nokia now has an 810 with WiMax, so that should
>> make you happy.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> a metro- area "cellphone."  It'd probably approximate the metro-only
> style coverage T-Mobile had up until a few years ago.

One consideration I've been kicking around over the Verizon takeover of
Alltel is just dumping sellphones, entirely.  I'm in a good position,
now that I'm retired, of going Skype exclusive and pocketing another
$72/month over what I'm paying, now.  Oh, it's great fun and all to have
mobile data and stuff, but I keep thinking about what I could do with
another $864 per year without it.  After hearing a Verizon TSR tell me
my unlimited data service WASN'T part of my cellphone contract with
Alltel and inferring that I was going to have to pay Verizon data rates
for 5G/mo, which I simply will NOT do, that might be the kicker to dump
the sellphone habit and just carry one of my old phones around for free
911 service on whatever it can find.

There's so many wifi hotspots, free or just unguarded, across the city
you're never more than 100' from "something" to hook Skype up to.  Every
restaurant I eat in is now a free wifi hotspot....or I simply won't
stop.  I can listen to MP3s on the road, instead of streaming KIX
Country from Queensland, "The World's Greatest Country".  I have
millions of MP3 songs, a lifetime collection.

The other recent trend is for the home delivery ISPs to cap home
delivery.  Time Warner is doing it.  Comcrap threatens to do it, too.  
Knology has said nothing to us about limiting usage, but I fully expect
the whole industry to try to pull that $10/GB bullshit, once again, to a
new generation who doesn't remember what happened the last time the ISP
bean counters tried to pull it.  If Wimax shows up with a Time Warner
cap on it....I won't be interested, even if I don't come anywhere near
the cap.  I just couldn't support it.  They're trying to stifle internet
TV and movie delivery, services Time-Warner is trying to save on the TV
channels.  Open internet will soon be but a memory in Corporate
America....

We'll see....Skype will do for now.  Works great.

$864 divided by $1.67 gas = 517+ gallons for a long vacation....even
more gas next week!  I think it's time we re-evaluated sellphone charges
based on the new global price reality of gas, diesel, houses,
stocks....and gold, down 25% itself.
Todd Allcock - 06 Dec 2008 04:25 GMT
> One consideration I've been kicking around over the Verizon takeover of
> Alltel is just dumping sellphones, entirely.  I'm in a good position,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the sellphone habit and just carry one of my old phones around for free
> 911 service on whatever it can find.

Don't forget prepaid.  Check out www.pagepluscellular.com.  They resell
Verizon for a fraction of Verizon rates- as low as $0.06/minute. They also
have a 120-day expiration on all refills, including their $10 card.  I keep
a PP phone in the glove box as a backup for where T-Mo has no service.  It
costs me $30/year to keep active.  And if you really want a trip down
memory lane, PP has free QNC data (Verizon's old 1st-gen 14.4kbps data!)
Check your junk box- I suspect you still have an old Verizon or Alltel
phone old enough to support QNC (called "Quick2Net" on most old Verizon
phones.)  PagePlus will activate any old CDMA phone for a few bucks.  (This
dealer, http://cellular-360.com/, will activate you for $5, which includes
100 minutes good for 120 days.)

> There's so many wifi hotspots, free or just unguarded, across the city
> you're never more than 100' from "something" to hook Skype up to.  Every
> restaurant I eat in is now a free wifi hotspot....or I simply won't
> stop.  I can listen to MP3s on the road, instead of streaming KIX
> Country from Queensland, "The World's Greatest Country".  I have
> millions of MP3 songs, a lifetime collection.

True, but for when you're off the beaten path, however, a nice cheap
$2.50/month cell service for those not-quite-911-level-emergencies comes in
handy.  I use an old Verizon Samsung i600 WinMo 2003 smartphone I picked up
on eBay for $25 for PagePlus- even at 14.4k, it allows me to check email,
do quick phone number lookups or get driving directions.

In reality, I haven't really needed it as a phone much- with it's roaming
partners, T-Mo's coverage is orders of magnitude better than it was a few
years ago, but a few of those partners don't allow data roaming, and the PP
smartphone has come in handy to keep up with email when I'm in the sticks.
SMS - 06 Dec 2008 07:26 GMT
>> One consideration I've been kicking around over the Verizon takeover of
>> Alltel is just dumping sellphones, entirely.  I'm in a good position,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Don't forget prepaid.  Check out www.pagepluscellular.com.  They resell
> Verizon for a fraction of Verizon rates- as low as $0.06/minute.

As low as $0.053 actually.
Larry - 06 Dec 2008 15:04 GMT
> Don't forget prepaid.  Check out www.pagepluscellular.com.  They
> resell Verizon for a fraction of Verizon rates- as low as
> $0.06/minute. They also have a 120-day expiration on all refills,
> including their $10 card.  I keep a PP phone in the glove box as a
> backup for where T-Mo has no service.  It

We have another Verizon option here called Cricket:
http://www.mycricket.com/cricketplans/
$25 just local UNLIMITED calling or $35 with unlimited LD.  NOONE beats
them.  Pay the roaming on VZW outside the city...Cricket's all CDMA.

Their internet suffers from the same lies as Verizon did before NYS Atty
General Cuomo sued Verizon.  Cricket has the same exact "unlimited
access" nonsense in the big type, then they say:

"Throughput may be limited if use exceeds 5GB per month. Internet
browsing does not include: hosted computer applications, continuous web
camera or broadcast, automatic data feeds, machine-to-machine
connections, peer to peer (P2P) connections or other applications that
denigrate network capacity or functionality."
...in the little type.  "Unlimited access" is what Verizon hacks used to
use to sell their $60 service, too.  It's a lie.

Still, 5GB/mo for $40, $35 with a phone plan, isn't bad.  But, no
tethering to my tablet.  It's a USB wireless modem for laptops.  The
tablet could be made to support it, but the dongle would not be
nice...even on a laptop.

Hard to beat an unlimited phone for $35/mo with LD.  Best teenage girl
phones on the PLANET if you shut down roaming so her phone goes dead out
of the service areas, which are growing across the country really fast.  
Cricket has made a roaming deal with someone big in Florida.  Check out
the "Extended Coverage" maps.  Most of South Florida is Cricket Country,
now if you buy a little more plan with extended coverage for traveling.

People tell me Cricket has their own system.  But, in Charleston,
they're using Verizon.
Todd Allcock - 06 Dec 2008 15:51 GMT
> > Don't forget prepaid.  Check out www.pagepluscellular.com.  They
> > resell Verizon for a fraction of Verizon rates- as low as
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> $25 just local UNLIMITED calling or $35 with unlimited LD.  NOONE beats
> them.  Pay the roaming on VZW outside the city...Cricket's all CDMA.

Cricket doesn't roam universally.  All of Verizon is "home" to PagePlus,
plus you can roam on Alltel, Sprint, or virtually any other CDMA carrier
(for additional cost.)

> People tell me Cricket has their own system.  But, in Charleston,
> they're using Verizon.

No, they're not.  Cricket has their own infrastructure in every market
they're in, at 1900MHz.

Why is god's name would Verizon sell them wholesale airtime only in their
most congested area?
Larry - 07 Dec 2008 01:08 GMT
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:vNx_k.11531$Re2.7268
@newsfe14.iad:

> No, they're not.  Cricket has their own infrastructure in every market
> they're in, at 1900MHz.

Hmm...their dealers don't know, then.
Dennis Ferguson - 06 Dec 2008 17:41 GMT
> People tell me Cricket has their own system.  But, in Charleston,
> they're using Verizon.

I'm not good with the FCC database, but here's a press release
where Leap Wireless announced the acquisition of a Charleston
spectrum license (among others):

  http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/story/1107376/

Cricket doesn't use other companies' facilities, they couldn't
maintain an unlimited-for-$35 business if they didn't own their own.

Dennis Ferguson
Larry - 07 Dec 2008 01:13 GMT
>> People tell me Cricket has their own system.  But, in Charleston,
>> they're using Verizon.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Dennis Ferguson

Thanks for the info and pointer, Dennis.  Cricket is very interesting
here.  Its expansion across SC is going faster than I ever expected.  
I'll just carry my Z6m over there and wait for them to allow tethering,
enjoying unlimited service in the mean time.  $70 for Verizon is just
insanity for those of us who rarely travel.
SMS - 05 Dec 2008 09:20 GMT
>  
>>> Wimax customers won't need landline phones or sellphones.  They'll
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Not significantly cheaper than cellular data's typical $50-60/month rates.

If you can do away with DSL or Broadband, and use WiMax both for mobile
and home use then it's not a bad deal at $45, especially if you can use
it for VOIP with a Nokia 810, and do away with regular cell phone
service and use a good prepaid like PagePlus when outside WiMax areas.
You could also dump landline service if it's available at home.

Now how are they planning to screw it up?!
Larry - 06 Dec 2008 01:13 GMT
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:Wm6_k.9317$c45.2912
@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

> If you can do away with DSL or Broadband, and use WiMax both for mobile
> and home use then it's not a bad deal at $45, especially if you can use
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Now how are they planning to screw it up?!

Wimax is marketed as for both mobile and home use.  Because it has
similar bandwidth to what cable delivers, faster than DSL by far,
there'll be no reason to wire your house to the cable any more.  I'm
sure they are well aware of this threat and CTIA is lobbying hard with
its cronies to try to stop it.  A wimax transceiver is available for
your desktop PC:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/motorola-rolls-out-wave-2-ready-
wimax-pc-card-and-desktop-unit/

Notice the desktop unit also has places to plug in the old landline
phone system, now not connected to Ma Bell any more, cutting the cable
for everything except TV, if that's your bag.

The same companies, like Time-Warner, Comcrap, etc., are involved in
America's Wimax rollout, because, of course, it threatens their core
cable internet service.  As they are now screwing up cable internet with
monthly GB caps, throttling, short-circuiting Bit Torrent and other high
bandwidth usage they are not being paid extra for, they'll CERTAINLY do
to the new Wimax to "make it fair competition", or other such corporate
bullshit to deny bandwidth usage to the customers.  Because they have
the government bureaucrats, and certainly the politicians, in their
pockets, just like sellphones, consumers will be taking it up the a.s 
all over again.  Wimax has been INFILTRATED by these same people that
are screwing up cable internet.  It's a real shame.....but predictable.

If it starts delivery with bandwidth throttling you'll be able to use
it, ever so slowly.  If they deliver it with fast bandwidth, which seems
the current trend for cable, it will have a punative bandwidth cap "for
those users who 'abuse the system'", anyone who dares USE what they buy.

Large corporations, by their very nature, must f.ck up everything they
touch.  Wimax will be no exception to this American Icon.
Larry - 05 Dec 2008 03:13 GMT
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:2j%Zk.7534$as4.93
@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:

> I did see that Nokia now has an 810 with WiMax, so that should make you
> happy.

I've had my grubby, wrinkled hands all over it, but Wimax is a ways off in
SC.  We're just getting used to the idea of electric lights over gas.

It's a beautiful device....like the other N810.  I don't upgrade because
two huge SDHC cards and front-mounted speakers are more important to me
than the slideout keyboard.  I have a rollup rubber USB keyboard for typing
something long and an external Nokia BT GPS receiver for navigation.

I'll upgrade if Wimax threatens to be installed....(c;
Steve Sobol - 05 Dec 2008 19:01 GMT
> I've had my grubby, wrinkled hands all over it, but Wimax is a ways off in
> SC.  We're just getting used to the idea of electric lights over gas.

I apologize... but I don't understand what farting has to do with electric
lights. Please explain.

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Richard B. Gilbert - 05 Dec 2008 19:39 GMT
>> I've had my grubby, wrinkled hands all over it, but Wimax is a ways off in
>> SC.  We're just getting used to the idea of electric lights over gas.
>
> I apologize... but I don't understand what farting has to do with electric
> lights. Please explain.

About 100 years ago, before Thomas Edison, natural gas, or "coal gas",
was used for lighting.  A few VERY OLD houses may still have the piping
and fixtures in place.  These lamps used a "mantle" much like today's
Coleman Lanterns.

As you may imagine, this was not totally satisfactory; there were
explosions and fires, people asphyxiated, etc.

SC is well known to be one of the most backward states in the union.
The rumors you may have heard are true; they ARE installing flush
toilets next year! ;-)
The Ghost of General Lee - 05 Dec 2008 20:08 GMT
>SC is well known to be one of the most backward states in the union.

Usually by bigoted jackasses who have never even visited the state.
Richard B. Gilbert - 05 Dec 2008 21:36 GMT
>> SC is well known to be one of the most backward states in the union.
>
> Usually by bigoted jackasses who have never even visited the state.

Also held by bigoted jackasses who HAVE been there!
Larry - 06 Dec 2008 00:55 GMT
> About 100 years ago, before Thomas Edison, natural gas, or "coal gas",
> was used for lighting.  A few VERY OLD houses may still have the piping
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> The rumors you may have heard are true; they ARE installing flush
> toilets next year! ;-)

By USA standards, Charleston is very old, long before the country.  Many
of the original buildings and homes are kept in pristine condition, in
spite of many firestorms the city has endured over the centuries.  Many
of those homes were converted from candles to coal gas lights before the
late 19th century saw DC electric power from the Edison company, whos
generator stations were placed across the old city because Edison never
solved DC's big problem...line loss.  Edison never understood it.  The
Tesla multiphase AC system, that powers the world today, swept it aside,
dispite Edison's scare tactics in Central Park, NYC, trying to trash it
(sort of like sellphone companies trying to trash Wimax and other
competition with lawsuits and lobbying, now).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlPYikt_qvo
(the grusome original film the Smithsonian refuses to show)
Edison, an American corporate monster when threatened, electrocuted
hundreds to thousands of dogs and cats to try to scare the public into
refusing to install Tesla's AC power from Westinghouse Electric.  What a
great American Edison always is depicted as.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTT94Lt0ce4
Edison invented the Electric Chair in 1888.  This execution was
illegally filmed for the warden in the 1970s.

A friend of mine lives in a small, but heavily built, building in the
middle of the affluent "Below Broad" neighborhood on Tradd St.  If you
feel around on the carpet in his living room, which has a solid concrete
floor over 5 feet thick, you can feel the cut off huge bolts the Edison
DC generators from one of the first electric installations were held
fast with, an amazing piece of history, itself.

All of the original gas fixtures are still floor mounted and huge gas
chandeliers hang from the ceiling of many old churches, their gas jets
having been converted to light bulbs years later.  Many old houses still
use "tube and nail" cloth-covered copper wire in parallel mounted on
ceramic insulators nailed into the plaster walls.  A large porcelain
rotary switch turns on the historic overhead light in many living rooms.

Though many outhouses still exist, but are not used, across the historic
city, we've had plumbing for years.  It's easy to spot as there was no
room for it inside the old plaster walls, so it was installed on the
OUTSIDE of the buildings going through a hole in the wall where it was
needed inside.  This makes for very exciting Saturdays when Charleston
gets a hard freeze Friday night, with all the exposed plumbing splitting
open then remelting with geysers erupting all over the historic
district...(c;]  Houses with indoor toilets also have outdoor sewer
lines showing off how modern we are to passers-by tourists who spend
thousands to look at them.  We call them "Dumb Yankee Tourists" because
everyone here knows you can see them for free any ol' time you like.
Larry - 06 Dec 2008 01:00 GMT
> SC is well known to be one of the most backward states in the union.
> The rumors you may have heard are true; they ARE installing flush
> toilets next year! ;-)

Back in the 1960's, the Navy Wives Club put up a huge billboard along the
new Interstate 26 that fed the unsuspecting into Charleston.  The Chamber
of Commerce unsuccessfully sued to have it removed.  It read:

  WELCOME TO CHARLESTON

SET YOUR WATCH BACK 200 YEARS

At the time, the city was still pretty primitive and housing was a real
problem.  This sign resulted in a couple of new Navy and Air Force enlisted
housing projects that got the enlisted families out of the slums around the
bases.
Steve Sobol - 06 Dec 2008 17:55 GMT
>>> I've had my grubby, wrinkled hands all over it, but Wimax is a ways off in
>>> SC.  We're just getting used to the idea of electric lights over gas.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> About 100 years ago, before Thomas Edison, natural gas, or "coal gas",

I was making a joke...

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Todd Allcock - 05 Dec 2008 01:37 GMT
> Wimax customers won't need landline phones or sellphones.  They'll be
> using Skype...cheap.

Actually Clear is already offering their own VoIP service as an add-on to
Clear WiMax, just like virtually every other ISP does.

> Wimax is rolling out across the rest of the planet while the
> obstructionists in the USA put us further and further behind, as usual.  
> The rest of the planet can be watched from:
> http://www.wimaxday.net/site/
> watching small countries like Bahrain and Qatar impliment Wimax from
> Vodaphone....

Any countries larger than Baltimore using it yet?  If not, we're caught up
already!  ;-)
JG - 22 Dec 2008 23:07 GMT
> >> Sprint didn't even get enough NYC subscribers to return surveys to
> >> even be ranked in NYC (if Consumer Reports doesn't get enough surveys
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> customer base says as much as the surveys do. Sprint is in a death
> Spriral.

Sprint and their partner in crime, Virgin,  changed their web browser
billing system to drain your account for data charges WITHOUT
confirming with the user to do it.
Hese is SCUM...JG
Steve Sobol - 22 Dec 2008 23:14 GMT
> Sprint and their partner in crime, Virgin,  changed their web browser
> billing system to drain your account for data charges WITHOUT
> confirming with the user to do it.
> Hese is SCUM...JG

Virgin is a completely different service with completely separate billing.
Sprint doesn't own Virgin, Virgin just uses Sprint's network.

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Todd Allcock - 03 Dec 2008 01:30 GMT
> Verizon and Alltel (soon to be Verizon) ranked first in 23 of 23 cities.
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> statistically accurate result then they leave out the result for that
> carrier in that city).

One could make the (admittedly flimsy) argument that most Consumer Reports
subscribers would tend to trust CR rankings (else why subscribe to the
magazine?)  Since they've ranked Verizon at the top for x# of years, the
subscribers could be influenced by past reports and have migrated to Verizon
in greater numbers than the other carriers.  The fact that there weren't
enough Sprint subscribers responding in the nation's largest wireless market
might lend some creedence to that position.  One could therefore argue every
survey except the first has been tainted by prior survey results.
Similarly, if CR consistently ranked Kenmore as the best dishwasher for a
decade, would you be surprised to see a poll of CR subscribers reporting
their Kenmores are great dishwashers?

While I'll conceed that Verizon does have a better network than other
carriers, in my experience it's a marginal lead, not the order of magnitude
some believe.  T-Mobile's high placement in most markets (generally the
number two carrier in the survey in virtually every market they were ranked
in!) surprises me, given they got "poor" ratings in dead spots in most of
their markets.  This makes me wonder what formula CR is actually using in
ranking carrier satisifaction since it seems to me that abilty/inability to
receive a signal should be the paramount measure, yet T-Mo ranked high
despite often getting the worst rating in that category!  (And I say this as
a relatively happy T-mo customer!)  This would make me question the accuracy
of concluding Verizon has the best coverage in these cities if the LACK of
actual coverage doesn't seem to hurt your rank!
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 01:45 GMT
>> Verizon and Alltel (soon to be Verizon) ranked first in 23 of 23 cities.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> subscribers could be influenced by past reports and have migrated to
> Verizon in greater numbers than the other carriers.

But the ratings aren't subscribers voting on which carrier is the best
one, they are based on subscribers experiences with their own carrier.
It doesn't matter if 500 subscribers in San Francisco respond for
Verizon, and 400 respond for AT&T, the results are normalized.

  The fact that there weren't
> enough Sprint subscribers responding in the nation's largest wireless
> market
> might lend some creedence to that position.

Yes, it's possible that Consumer Reports subscribers have dumped Sprint
in proportionally larger numbers than the general population, to the
point where they can't even get enough Sprint subscribers to fill out
the survey in some areas. OTOH, why didn't the same occur in other metro
areas, where they have smaller populations to draw from?

> Similarly, if CR consistently ranked Kenmore as the best dishwasher for a
> decade, would you be surprised to see a poll of CR subscribers reporting
> their Kenmores are great dishwashers?

It depends if the results were normalized by the number of respondents
that own each brand, rather than raw numbers.

> While I'll conceed that Verizon does have a better network than other
> carriers, in my experience it's a marginal lead, not the order of magnitude
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> receive a signal should be the paramount measure, yet T-Mo ranked high
> despite often getting the worst rating in that category!

There could be various vagaries at work here. Perhaps T-Mobile drops
less calls because they are not able to initiate calls in places with
more dead spots. Until a few weeks ago, I could claim that T-Mobile
dropped no calls that were initiated at my house, since you usually
couldn't make a call to begin with.
Todd Allcock - 03 Dec 2008 02:58 GMT
>> One could make the (admittedly flimsy) argument that most Consumer
>> Reports
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> doesn't matter if 500 subscribers in San Francisco respond for Verizon,
> and 400 respond for AT&T, the results are normalized.

I understand that- but if 5000 respond for Verizon and 200 for AT&T, due to
a tendency for CR subscribers to migrate to brands CR annoints, that could
conceivably color the results, even if normalized, since the CR-blessed
brands' customers might have a tendency to be more satisfied due to a
CR-halo effect.

> Yes, it's possible that Consumer Reports subscribers have dumped Sprint in
> proportionally larger numbers than the general population, to the point
> where they can't even get enough Sprint subscribers to fill out the survey
> in some areas. OTOH, why didn't the same occur in other metro areas, where
> they have smaller populations to draw from?

For starters, we don't know CR's methodology.  What does too small a sample
mean?  To few in number, or a statistically disproportionate number?  I.e.,
if CR decides the cut off is 10% of the responses of the largest response,
1000 could be too small if Verizon had 10,001.  (All example numbers grasped
firmly from my backside, solely for illustration.)

>> Similarly, if CR consistently ranked Kenmore as the best dishwasher for a
>> decade, would you be surprised to see a poll of CR subscribers reporting
>> their Kenmores are great dishwashers?
>
> It depends if the results were normalized by the number of respondents
> that own each brand, rather than raw numbers.

Again, if 1000 Kenmore owners respond, and 10 Maytag owners, you can
"normalize" all day but not know if the data is accurate.

>> While I'll conceed that Verizon does have a better network than other
>> carriers, in my experience it's a marginal lead, not the order of
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> that were initiated at my house, since you usually couldn't make a call to
> begin with.

The fine print under the chart at the bottom of the page is quite telling,
and IMHO, almost makes the presented data misleading.  The fine print tells
us other (unspecified) factors are weighed in the ranking numbers, besides
the call performance data (no service, circuits busy, static, etc.)
presented next to the scores.  Without reading that fine print, one might
conclude the data presented in the chart was the source of the weighted
score to the left, when, in fact, the score was a overall satisifaction
ranking.  (Which explains T-Mo's high marks- what they lack in coverage,
they try to make up for in customer service and price/percieved value, two
categories they excel in that probably bumped up their score quite a bit.
Similarly, Sprint's low rankings are probably far more due to their
legendary poor customer service rather than any coverage issues.)

So, essentially, this a mirror of the JD Powers satisfaction survey, which
is also a general, nebulous "satisfaction" survey rather than any ranking of
coverage, and not surprisingly, ends up at the same conclusion: Verizon
customers are a little more satisfied than other carriers'.  (The fine print
also explains differences of less than seven points are meaningless, and,
surprise, virtualy all of the differences between the top two carriers, and
most of the top three, were less than seven points.)
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 09:13 GMT
>>> One could make the (admittedly flimsy) argument that most Consumer
>>> Reports
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> CR-blessed brands' customers might have a tendency to be more satisfied
> due to a CR-halo effect.

It could just as easily have the opposite effect, with customers
expecting much more from the brand that did well in previous years, and
being disappointed when they find the difference to be less than they
expected. In any case, CR advises readers not to take minor differences
in the survey too seriously, i.e. a couple of points difference.

> For starters, we don't know CR's methodology.  What does too small a
> sample mean?  To few in number, or a statistically disproportionate
> number?

They say too few in number. They need a certain number of responses for
the margin of error to be low enough to have credibility. It's not a
statistically disproportionate number. Remember, they don't even know
how many subscribers each carrier has in each metro area.

> Again, if 1000 Kenmore owners respond, and 10 Maytag owners, you can
> "normalize" all day but not know if the data is accurate.

Again, if only 10 Maytag owners responded, they wouldn't rate Maytag at
all, because they wouldn't have enough data.
K2NNJ - 03 Dec 2008 03:06 GMT
No matter how you slice it, Verizon Wireless is better in most parts of the
country and the rest are not.  AT&T is just whining because they are losing
customers.  The TV ad they are pushing that says "more bars in more places"
is based on world coverage, because they cannot compete with VZW in the
lower 48.

Other posters have stated that VZW is better overseas as well.  So I don't
know what your point is here.  Are you defending AT&T?  If so, it's a lost
cause.

I previously posted the CR results and they are accurate.

>>> Verizon and Alltel (soon to be Verizon) ranked first in 23 of 23 cities.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
> that were initiated at my house, since you usually couldn't make a call to
> begin with.
Todd Allcock - 03 Dec 2008 03:30 GMT
> No matter how you slice it, Verizon Wireless is better in most parts of
> the country and the rest are not.  AT&T is just whining because they are
> losing customers.

Since when is AT&T "losing customers"?  Like Verizon, AT&T continues to add
subscribers every quarter.

> The TV ad they are pushing that says "more bars in more places" is based
> on world coverage, because they cannot compete with VZW in the lower 48.
>
> Other posters have stated that VZW is better overseas as well.  So I don't
> know what your point is here.  Are you defending AT&T?  If so, it's a lost
> cause.

Many of AT&T's 70 million customers might possibly disagree.

> I previously posted the CR results and they are accurate.

I'm sure they are- the shocking results were simply that Verizon's customers
are slightly more satisfied than other carriers' customers.  All carriers,
even the lowest ranked in a given market (generally Sprint) hit the 60 point
"satisfied" mark, (and generally, with a few exceptions, missed the 80-point
"very satisfied" mark!) which makes sense, since "unsatisfied" customers
would likely have switched to a different carrier by now!

The whole Verizon/AT&T thing reeks a little of Ford/Chevy, Windows/Mac, etc.
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 09:19 GMT
> No matter how you slice it, Verizon Wireless is better in most parts of
> the country and the rest are not.  AT&T is just whining because they are
> losing customers.  The TV ad they are pushing that says "more bars in
> more places" is based on world coverage, because they cannot compete
> with VZW in the lower 48.

Verizon should respond with an ad that uses their quad band GSM/dual
band CDMA phone.

> Other posters have stated that VZW is better overseas as well.

In countries in Asia with both CDMA and GSM, the CDMA system is less
problematic in cities, but has less coverage in rural areas. However
this may be because the CDMA network has so few local subscribers that
those of us that roam on it have no problem with congestion.

> don't know what your point is here.  Are you defending AT&T?  If so,
> it's a lost cause.

No, I'm not defending them. What their spokesperson said war extremely
ridiculous, especially since the CR survey mirrors every other
independent survey.
Dennis Ferguson - 04 Dec 2008 03:02 GMT
>> Other posters have stated that VZW is better overseas as well.
>
> In countries in Asia with both CDMA and GSM, the CDMA system is less
> problematic in cities, but has less coverage in rural areas. However
> this may be because the CDMA network has so few local subscribers that
> those of us that roam on it have no problem with congestion.

That is so not true in general.  I'm in a country in Asia with
both CDMA and GSM, in a city with a population of 7 million but
with 10 million mobile phone subscriptions and where US$10 per
month will buy you 2000 minutes of voice service (i.e. everyone
has a mobile phone and no one is afraid to use it), with 6 carriers
jammed into the available spectrum, and I regularly visit what is
probably the most densely populated urban neighbourhood on the planet,
yet I can tell you for certain that the GSM service is just excellent.
It works in elevators, it works in the subway, it works on the ferries,
I can't remember it ever dropping a call, it always rings my phone
instead of sending calls direct to voice mail.  There is no US carrier
whose service comes close.

You can't extrapolate from one bad experience in a newly constructed
convention center (where the phone companies likely just hadn't got
around to constructing facilities appropriate for the crowds now being
drawn) to any general conclusion about GSM in cities.  There are
existence proofs that GSM networks can be built to work flawlessly in
places where the population density makes Manhattan look kind of empty.

Dennis Ferguson
Joe Seattle - 03 Dec 2008 23:05 GMT
> No matter how you slice it, Verizon Wireless is better in most parts of the
> country and the rest are not.  AT&T is just whining because they are losing
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
> > that were initiated at my house, since you usually couldn't make a call to
> > begin with.

AT&T's adverts are like fingernails on a chalkboard.  I've never heard
so much whining.  Their "good" network is the result of their roaming
partners outside of the US.  They of course never mention this as it
would make them look bad.
Mike M - 03 Dec 2008 09:05 GMT
> Verizon and Alltel (soon to be Verizon) ranked first in 23 of 23 cities.
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> "http://www.thestreet.com/story/10450680/1/survey-finds-cell-phone-satisfaction.html"

How 'bout we ask eachother, "which company makes the most money, does it
really matter, and do we give a f.ck?"  Has anyone ever done a survey of
"How well do you like your landline, your DSL, FIOS,?"
Who gives a f.ck about "your" service?  All that matters is that "ours"
is working well.  Just shut up and use your phone like it was meant to
be used-not how a Research Group tells you how to feel about it.  We
could do 10 different "focus groups" and get as many answers.
Money talks, who's your Daddy?
SMS - 03 Dec 2008 14:56 GMT
> Who gives a f.ck about "your" service?  All that matters is that "ours"
> is working well.

It matters a lot. No one can possibly test their service in all the
areas they're likely to travel to, so the experiences of others are
extremely valuable when choosing a carrier. If someone in New York
spends a lot of time in San Francisco, they'll want to know what kind of
coverage they can expect in San Francisco before changing carriers. You
don't want to select a carrier based only on whether it works at your
house and your workplace.
Paul Miner - 03 Dec 2008 16:29 GMT
>> Who gives a f.ck about "your" service?  All that matters is that "ours"
>> is working well.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>don't want to select a carrier based only on whether it works at your
>house and your workplace.

I don't know how relevant it is here, but I recently saw statistics
basically showing that a very large majority of wireless subscribers
don't travel outside of their local area. I'm paraphrasing because I
don't have the article handy, but if true, it would seem that for most
people it would be acceptable to verify that a certain carrier works
well at their house, their workplace, and in between.

Signature

Paul Miner

The Bob - 04 Dec 2008 04:22 GMT
>>> Who gives a f.ck about "your" service?  All that matters is that
>>> "ours" is working well.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> people it would be acceptable to verify that a certain carrier works
> well at their house, their workplace, and in between.

I saw that one- it was like a twenty mile radius.  Some huge number
admitted that there usage was almost exclusively in that area.  And that
plays to a point I made in another post- the average US cellular consumer
does not give a crap if the phone works in Madrid or Bumfukistan.  The
Average consumer cares that they can place and receive calls and message in
a manner that is convenient to them (whether email or texting).  They want
the phone to work everywhere they go, but will gladly avoid the one or two
areas in their life where the coverage is spotty, or temporarily put up
with the inconvenience and then go on their merry way.

Two weekends ago, the Sprint messaging network took a rather extended
dirtnap.  I know this because all of my kids have Sprint phones.  They have
Sprint phones because I was able to get a package with low anytime minutes,
extended N&W and unlimited texting for a very reasonable price.  The low
anytime minutes are never an issue because most of the year they are in
class.  The N&W minutes are almost a waste- they never talk on the phone!  
But let that messaging system go down and holy sh.t, the world is going to
end.  I watched three teenage boys take their phones out of their pockets
every thirty seconds to see if their lifeline to the world had been
restored.  Now, my kids represent the average teenage cellular consumer in
terms of product requirement and usage.  Having coverage in Lithuania is
not a top concern.  Having the ability to take pictures of themselves and
send them over the airwaves is important.
Larry - 04 Dec 2008 23:52 GMT
> I don't know how relevant it is here, but I recently saw statistics
> basically showing that a very large majority of wireless subscribers
> don't travel outside of their local area. I'm paraphrasing because I
> don't have the article handy, but if true, it would seem that for most
> people it would be acceptable to verify that a certain carrier works
> well at their house, their workplace, and in between.

Isn't this why the big gun carriers, like Verizon, dumped their more-
minutes-for-less-money regional plans that covered a couple of states
around your home?  $39 buys 700 minutes in a regional SC/NC plan that
also covers inland of the border states around 80 miles, here on Alltel.  
$39 buys 150 minutes on VZW's nationwide plan they are forced to buy as
no regional plans exist.

It was another reason I fled to Alltel.  Pity we're going to lose that
option very soon....next month.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.