 |
 | 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 / General / General Topics / January 2004Verizon first in Consumer Reports satisfaction survey
http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was tallied and rated for each of 12 cities. > http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi > > Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was > tallied and rated for each of 12 cities. Link did not work. However, I understand they did not rate Alltel. I don't put a lot of faith in their work, although the descriptions of appliance features is helpful for understanding what might or might not be useful. Years ago, Consumer Reports downgraded the Checker automobile because there was too much room in the back seat. Well, DUH! In an age before SUV's and Vans, THAT'S why you bought a Checker! -Paul- _________________________________ One day, I purchased a 4-drawer metal filing cabinet at a clearance sale. We put the cabinet on the floor of the back seat of my Checker. The cabinet did not touch either door, or either seat! _________________________________ In alt.cellular Real Estate Agent <spamblockCaryRealtor@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was >> tallied and rated for each of 12 cities. > > Link did not work. However, I understand they did not rate Alltel. I don't > put a lot of faith in their work, although the descriptions of appliance > features is helpful for understanding what might or might not be useful. Alltel doesn't serve Chicago, and the Sun-Times is a Chicago paper. Alltel isn't really a nationwide carrier, either - doesn't serve anywhere near the number of markets that the big guys do.  SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Geek In Charge * 888.480.4NET (4638) * sjsobol@JustThe.net >http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi > >Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was >tallied and rated for each of 12 cities. That's a nice reference unfortunately it doesn't show anything of any use to anyone unless you think a blank page is useful. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply Joseph wrote on [Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:57:15 -0800]: >>http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's a nice reference unfortunately it doesn't show anything of any > use to anyone unless you think a blank page is useful. try http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-cell07.html Justin wrote on [Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:04:53 GMT]: > Joseph wrote on [Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:57:15 -0800]: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > try http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-cell07.html Of course, Consumer Reports is pretty useless when it comes to technology anyway "Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine calls unfair. " Ummmm.... so they expect every phone to work with every provider.... > > try http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-cell07.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ummmm.... so they expect every phone to work with every provider.... Exactly... don't know what they're thinking. > >>Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was > >>tallied and rated for each of 12 cities. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > try http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-cell07.html From the article: "Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine calls unfair. " Are we to beleive that CR is REALLY that clueless about taking your phone with you to another company? I don't think I'll be wasting any money on that trashloid. > > >>Verizon wins, SprintPCS loses after a survey of 31,000 subscribers was > > >>tallied and rated for each of 12 cities. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I don't think I'll be wasting any money on that trashloid. And they also say this when talking about time to port and having to carry twophones during the process: "The Consumers Union, the watchdog group that publishes Consumer Reports, said it will lobby the Federal Communications Commission to better enforce rules regarding number portability, as it's called." What rules? There are no rules to enforce- they simply mandated that portability was to happen. My entire outlook on the magazine has changed because of the total lack of a clue that exhibit in this article. It puts their 'results' in a questionable light. Michael Arends <mlarends@NODAMNSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message > From the article: > "Others have been told by their phone company that they must buy a new > phone to be able to transport their number, a practice the magazine > calls unfair. " You are quoting an article that reports on the CR article. The actual CR article does not say anything like this, other than mentioning that AT&T would not unlock GSM phones so they could be used on Cingular. I don't know what the reporter who wrote the article about the article as smoking. > Joseph wrote on [Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:57:15 -0800]: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > try http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-cell07.html Hmmm... "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than 31,000 responding." http://tinyurl.com/34oer That hardly sounds like even at attempt at scientific neutrality. Signature-+- RØß O/Siris I work for SprintPCS I *don't* speak for them. Hmmm... "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than 31,000 responding." http://tinyurl.com/34oer That hardly sounds like even at attempt at scientific neutrality. That pretty much seals it- this is about as uncontrolled and unscientific as you can get. Kind of surprising that they'd do it in this manner- it now becomes a collection of biased opinions, instead of a survey of trends. What a bunch of crap. > Hmmm... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > becomes a collection of biased opinions, instead of a survey of trends. > What a bunch of crap. It might not be biased, it is simply that the sample only represents CU subscribers who were interested enough to participate. That sort of sample hardly represents cellular users in general. One would have hoped that CU would do something better, but then there was the Samurai. SignatureThomas M. Goethe > "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails > to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That hardly sounds like even at attempt at scientific > neutrality. With that large a sample size, you can rest assured that the results do a good job of presenting the opinions of the average Consumer Reports reader. The question then becomes, how well does the average Consumer Reports reader represent the average cell phone user? I'm sure not many teenie-boppers or high school dropouts subscribe to Consumer Reports, so the opinions are probably biased somewhat toward middle age, upper middle class,well-educated citizens -- all in all not a bad group to listen to. SignatureJohn Richards > > "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails > > to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > biased somewhat toward middle age, upper middle class,well-educated citizens -- > all in all not a bad group to listen to. Only true (to a degree) unless the sample included 30,000 Verizon users, and 200 from each of the other major carriers. The short of it is that CR did a total crap job of doing this survey, and I can see nothing that was done by acceptable statistical standards. And the sample size (when compared to well over 80 million people using the top 5 carriers alone) would require controls that were simply not in place here. > > > "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails > > > to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > well over 80 million people using the top 5 carriers alone) would require > controls that were simply not in place here. The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds of lies 1) white lies 2) black lies & 3) statistics--and as you must well know, you can prove any statement you wish, thru statistics--and when I hear someone make a statment like " statistically speaking" I assume I'm getting ready to be lied to. > The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds > of lies > 1) white lies 2) black lies & 3) statistics--and as you must well > know, you can prove any statement you wish, thru statistics--and when > I hear someone make a statment like " statistically speaking" I assume > I'm getting ready to be lied to. No argument here- I've seen surveys that left the taker no choice but to agree with a certain point of view. But an independent source does have the ability to take an unbiased survey, and I'm pretty sure that CR tried to do that in this case. I just have a problem with the way they took it. Scott Stephenson wrote on [Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:19:46 GMT]: >> The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds >> of lies [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ability to take an unbiased survey, and I'm pretty sure that CR tried to do > that in this case. I just have a problem with the way they took it. Consumer Reports is known for comparing the wrong stuff about technology anyway. Exactly! All you have to do, is ask a question a certain way, and you can skew any statistical graph any way you want. >The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds >of lies >1) white lies 2) black lies & 3) statistics--and as you must well >know, you can prove any statement you wish, thru statistics--and when >I hear someone make a statment like " statistically speaking" I assume >I'm getting ready to be lied to. >The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds >of lies >1) white lies 2) black lies & 3) statistics--and as you must well >know, you can prove any statement you wish, thru statistics--and when >I hear someone make a statment like " statistically speaking" I assume >I'm getting ready to be lied to Another old saying - "figures don't lie, statisticians do" -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds > of lies > 1) white lies 2) black lies & 3) statistics--and as you must well > know, you can prove any statement you wish, thru statistics--and when > I hear someone make a statment like " statistically speaking" I assume > I'm getting ready to be lied to. I recommend the old book "how to lie with statistics." It's a quick and fun book, but 100% educational. It was written a long time ago, but math and lies don't age. > > The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds > > of lies [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004 Despite how easy it is to construct surveys I doubt you could design one which would put Sprint anywhere but in the bottom half. > Despite how easy it is to construct surveys I doubt you could design one > which would put Sprint anywhere but in the bottom half. Yeah- OK. >The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds >of lies >1) white lies 2) black lies & 3) statistics I always thought it was lies, damn lies, and statistics (but I never took a statistics class). Anyway, it is well known that 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot. ;-) SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "At a stage in life when other men prosper, I'm reduced to living in Philadelphia." - John Adams, "1776" > Anyway, it is well known that 78% of all statistics are made up on the > spot. ;-) LOL. And that's the way it is. Signature-+- RØß O/Siris I work for SprintPCS I *don't* speak for them. > >The only thing I remember from my stat class was there are three kinds > >of lies [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anyway, it is well known that 78% of all statistics are made up on the > spot. ;-) 78% of Americans failed statistics class and 22% of americans don't understand what "78%" means. > > "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails > > to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > biased somewhat toward middle age, upper middle class,well-educated citizens -- > all in all not a bad group to listen to. This survey was exceptionally well designed, and any bias is cancelled out by the methodology. The absolute numbers may be slightly different than the population at large, but the relative ratings of carriers would not be. This was NOT a survey where they 31,000 people responded to the question "who's the best wireless carrier?" The people objecting to the survey results are simply not looking at the facts, or don't understand statistics. This is 31,000 people rating their own carrier. Unless someone is dumb enough to believe that subscribers of one carrier are more likely to lie, than subscribers of another carrier, I've seen no coherent argument against the CR methodology. The fact that CR declined to rate any carrier in an area if they got less than 150 responses, says a lot about their dedication to accuracy. > > > "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails > > > to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > if they got less than 150 responses, says a lot about their dedication to > accuracy. And the fact that you have admitted to up to an 8% error rate in portions of this survey, coupled with the fact the first-to-worst in any of the markets used was less than an 8% swing, shows again that this survey can not be taken at face value. The method of sampling did not have enough controls to insure a true view of any carrier's subscriber base. > And the fact that you have admitted to up to an 8% error rate in portions of > this survey, coupled with the fact the first-to-worst in any of the markets > used was less than an 8% swing. Obviously you have not read the survey. The swing between best to worst 8% in only one city. It was typically 12-14%, and as high as 15%. And of course the margin of errors would not all be in opposite directions. And of course the 8% is absolutely worst case, if there were only 150 responses, which was rare as well. > shows again that this survey can not be taken at face value. The method of sampling did not have enough controls to > insure a true view of any carrier's subscriber base. It was an exceptionally well designed survey, with low margins of error, and a large sample. Get over it. > Hmmm... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That hardly sounds like even at attempt at scientific > neutrality. That's actually a very big sample size for a survey. And in most cases the differences between carriers was not small. No reason to doubt the results. The horrible ratings of AT&T are what surprised me. They used to have great coverage with their TDMA/AMPS network. What a botched job going to GSM! The results for San Francisco, LA, and NYC were right on target, the other cities I'm not familiar with. > That's actually a very big sample size for a survey. And in most cases > the differences between carriers was not small. No reason to doubt the > results. 31,000 out of over 70 million cell phone subscribers is very big? Its less than .05%, and given the way the survey was conducted, much too small to have any legitimacy. > > That's actually a very big sample size for a survey. And in most cases > > the differences between carriers was not small. No reason to doubt the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than .05%, and given the way the survey was conducted, much too small to > have any legitimacy. I'd agree with Scott. What's more, with the survey, how followed up to make sure that what was said was true. BTW, who's doing the independent audit on CR? I don't trust one thing they say ... Bob Whoops, change that "how" below to a "who" ... :) Bob > > > That's actually a very big sample size for a survey. And in most cases > > > the differences between carriers was not small. No reason to doubt the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bob "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:yBlOb.12602 > > 31,000 out of over 70 million cell phone subscribers is very big? Its > less > > than .05%, and given the way the survey was conducted, much too small to > > have any legitimacy. > > I'd agree with Scott. The margin of error relates strictly to the sample size. This was a huge sample size. Do the math yourself. It's one over the square root of the sample size (multiply by 100 to convert to a percentage) > What's more, with the survey, how followed up to make sure that what was said was true. This was a survey of subcribers, based on their experiences with their carrier. In every survey a few people may lie, but with such a huge sample, a few liars are inconsequential. And of course there is no reason to believe that subscribers from one carrier lie any more or less than subscribers from another carrier. You can't follow up on a survey to ask if what respondents said is true was actually true. You have to look to see if there would be any motivation for lying. >BTW, who's doing the independent audit on CR? I don't trust one thing they say ... You may not agree with their own evaluations of products for whatever reason, and I often feel this way too. But their surveys of owners of products and services are very valuable because they always use such large sample sizes. > The margin of error relates strictly to the sample size. This was a huge > sample size. Do the math yourself. It's one over the square root of the > sample size (multiply by 100 to convert to a percentage) The margin of error is not the bone of contention here. The survey represents less then .05% of all cellular users, and no effort was made to equally represent all carriers, or insure that an equal percentage of users from each carrier was included. For all we know, this was a survey of 30,000 Verizon users, 500 ATT users, 300 Cingular users, 100 T-Mobile users, 80 Nextel users, 10 Sprint users and 10 users of other carriers. The controls, and the way the users were gathered, leave too much room for inaccurate information. > > What's more, with the survey, how followed up to make sure that what was > said was true. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > products and services are very valuable because they always use such large > sample sizes. .05% of a user base is not a large sample. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:W_-dnSxfqviDm5fdRVn- > The margin of error is not the bone of contention here. The survey > represents less then .05% of all cellular users, and no effort was made to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > controls, and the way the users were gathered, leave too much room for > inaccurate information. Sorry, you're incorrect. The minimum number of respondents per city per carrier was 150. The controls were in place to ensure that the data was accurate. Even at the minimum response level the margin of error is low. Also, remember that this was not a survey where 31,000 people told CR who their favorite carrier is. This survey was asking cellular customers from to rate the service of their own carrier. > .05% of a user base is not a large sample. You're correct. It's not large, it's huge. Even if you divide up the total number of respondents by metro area, it's still a large sample per metro area, statistically speaking. As the article stated, the ratings are based strictly on survey results. Now if you have some reason to believe that Consumer Report subscribers (of which I am not one, BTW), are more likely than the population at large to rate a specific carrier better or worse, I'd love to see that evidence. I do believe that the margin of error for Verizon was probably less than that of other carriers, simply because Verizon is the largest carrier and no doubt got the most responses. Furthermore, since CR subscribers tend to be better educated and higher income than the population at large, I'd expect that there are more Verizon subscribers among CR subscribers than the population at large. However this does not change the actual ratings. > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message > news:W_-dnSxfqviDm5fdRVn- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > carrier was 150. The controls were in place to ensure that the data was > accurate. Even at the minimum response level the margin of error is low. The more correct way to take the survey would have 150 respondents per carrier, or x% of a carrier's subscriber base. The 'controls' you mention make my scenario more likely to occur, although not in the very sarcastic way I proposed it. > Also, remember that this was not a survey where 31,000 people told CR who > their favorite carrier is. This survey was asking cellular customers from to > rate the service of their own carrier. Correct. But a skew in the number of respondents per carrier skews the results. > > .05% of a user base is not a large sample. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that there are more Verizon subscribers among CR subscribers than the > population at large. However this does not change the actual ratings. Assuming that Verizon has a more intelligent subscriber base is pure crap. But thanks for pointing out the biases of a CR survey in that last paragraph- it further invalidates the data as presented. Myjob here is done. > The more correct way to take the survey would have 150 respondents per > carrier, or x% of a carrier's subscriber base. The 'controls' you mention > make my scenario more likely to occur, although not in the very sarcastic > way I proposed it. This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason. It's pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel, plus Cingular or T-Mobile (only in areas where they have reciprocal GSM sharing agreements that began only a couple of years ago). > Correct. But a skew in the number of respondents per carrier skews the > results. It does not skew the results, it increases the margin of error up to 8% (for 150 responses). > Assuming that Verizon has a more intelligent subscriber base is pure crap. Read more carefully. I said that the CR subscriber base has a higher educated and higher income than the population at large. But actually I do believe that the Verizon subscriber base is probably more intelligent as well, simply because they don't fall for gimmicks or select a carrier only on price or the coolest handset. > But thanks for pointing out the biases of a CR survey in that last > paragraph- it further invalidates the data as presented. Myjob here is > done. Yes, you've made yourself look like an idiot by presenting nothing to contradict anything in the CR artticle. You can move on to other areas where you don't know anything now. > > The more correct way to take the survey would have 150 respondents per > > carrier, or x% of a carrier's subscriber base. The 'controls' you mention [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Cingular or T-Mobile (only in areas where they have reciprocal GSM sharing > agreements that began only a couple of years ago). And how is this so clear? > > Correct. But a skew in the number of respondents per carrier skews the > > results. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > well, simply because they don't fall for gimmicks or select a carrier only > on price or the coolest handset. Your assumption is just that, and an uneducated one at best. The carrier with a greater concentration of corporate, government and executive subscribers would qualify as such, and that is not Verizon. Do some homework and see if you can figure out which carrier that is- the answer is no further away than a couple of clicks on the Internet. > > But thanks for pointing out the biases of a CR survey in that last > > paragraph- it further invalidates the data as presented. Myjob here is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contradict anything in the CR artticle. You can move on to other areas where > you don't know anything now. Look in the group archive- it is very evident by the accompanying article (which I have previously pointed out the lack of knowledge in) that they don't have a good grasp of either the cellular market or its mechanics. Any logical and intelligent person would agree that any survey taken where the underlying technology and market forces are not grasped by the surveyer are indeed crap. > > This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason. It's > > pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel, plus > > Cingular or T-Mobile (only in areas where they have reciprocal GSM sharing > > agreements that began only a couple of years ago). > > And how is this so clear? Nextel failed to garner 150 subscribers in more than half the areas, and it's a safe bet that in the other six areas that they had the fewest responses as well. Not surprising, given their small market share. In NYC, Cingular, which started service only two years ago, using T-Mobile's infrastructure, did not garner 150 responses. In the SF Bay Area, T-Mobile started service only two years ago using Cingular's infrastructure and did not make the cut. In the SF Bay Area, Cingular is a very poor carrier, and it was well known that T-Mobile would have the same problems, which limited T-Mobile's ability to sign up subscribers. This extrapolates to L.A., where T-Mobile did make the cut, but it's a safe bet that they had the second lowest number of responses. > Your assumption is just that, and an uneducated one at best. The carrier > with a greater concentration of corporate, government and executive > subscribers would qualify as such, and that is not Verizon. Do some > homework and see if you can figure out which carrier that is- the answer is > no further away than a couple of clicks on the Internet. I already know the answer to that, it's AT&T. For now. But these entities stuck with AT&T because they didn't want to give up their numbers; they are increasingly frustrated with the deteriorating AT&T network. That's all changed now with number portability. What may save AT&T is the expected merger with Cingular, and this will also help Cingular in areas where Cingular lacks any 800 Mhz spectrum. > Look in the group archive- it is very evident by the accompanying article > (which I have previously pointed out the lack of knowledge in) that they > don't have a good grasp of either the cellular market or its mechanics. The part of the article we are talking about is a survey that is unrelated to their evaluation of the product. But in fact, this article demonstrated a lot of knowledge about the state of wireless. I was surprised to see them include the sidebar "Trouble in the GSM Network," which was right on the money. They had several warnings about Nextel's geographic limitations. I wish they had included something about the importance of having AMPS capability for users that venture outside of urban and suburban areas. Steve http://nycell.com New York City Cellular Carrier Comparison http://sfbacell.com San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison http://socalcell.com Southern California Cellular Carrier Comparison http://earthroam.com International Roaming > > > This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason. It's > > > pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel, plus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it's a safe bet that in the other six areas that they had the fewest > responses as well. Not surprising, given their small market share. So, the survey may not show the best carrier for a market. > In NYC, Cingular, which started service only two years ago, using T-Mobile's > infrastructure, did not garner 150 responses. In the SF Bay Area, T-Mobile [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > merger with Cingular, and this will also help Cingular in areas where > Cingular lacks any 800 Mhz spectrum. No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact. > > Look in the group archive- it is very evident by the accompanying article > > (which I have previously pointed out the lack of knowledge in) that they > > don't have a good grasp of either the cellular market or its mechanics. > > The part of the article we are talking about is a survey that is unrelated > to their evaluation of the product. The part of the article that Iam talking about showed a complete lack of understanding about the industry. Lack of knowledge is not compartmentalized at will. > But in fact, this article demonstrated a lot of knowledge about the state of > wireless. I was surprised to see them include the sidebar "Trouble in the > GSM Network," which was right on the money. They had several warnings about > Nextel's geographic limitations. I wish they had included something about > the importance of having AMPS capability for users that venture outside of > urban and suburban areas. And the fact that Nextel was singled out shows the lack of knowledge- all carriers have geographic limitations. Was there any mention of the relatively small native network Verizon uses, and the various roaming agreements that expand that network, and change on a frequent basis? Any explanation to explain their concern about phones not always being portable between carriers? No there wasn't- this was an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of a popular topic in the press right now, and the fact that they are sponsoring a website used to bash and attempt to strongarm the carriers shows an even further lack of credibility and impartiality. > > > > This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason. It's > > > > pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel, [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > are sponsoring a website used to bash and attempt to strongarm the carriers > shows an even further lack of credibility and impartiality. Scott, do you have a vested interest in the outcome of this survey. Reading between the lines one could believe you are going to loose your job if this survey does not support your position. > No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact. AT&T has the largest number of business, corporate, government, and executive subscribers. Nextel is a special case since it consists almost completely of subscribers in a few business markets which require PTT. Nextel is not a carrier that an individual subscriber would choose, due to their lack of coverage outside major urban areas. > The part of the article that Iam talking about showed a complete lack of > understanding about the industry. Lack of knowledge is not > compartmentalized at will. The article showed an good knowledge of the industry. The survey section is a very separate item, just as it is when they do a survey of automobile reliability versus their own recommendations as to the best vehicle to buy. > And the fact that Nextel was singled out shows the lack of knowledge- all > carriers have geographic limitations. Only Nextel combines very limited geographic coverage with the inability to roam onto other carriers outside areas with iDEN. Nextel is a very poor choice for individual subscribers. Its only value proposition is PTT. >Was there any mention of the relatively small native network Verizon uses, and the various roaming agreements that expand that network, and change on a frequent basis? They do indeed mention the advantage of being able to roam with all the carriers other than Nextel, yes. >Any explanation to explain their concern about phones not always being portable between carriers? No there wasn't. Yes there was. Again it's obvious that you have not read the article, only reports about the article. > this was an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of a popular topic in the press right now, and the fact that they are sponsoring a website used to bash and attempt to strongarm the carriers shows an even further lack of credibility and impartiality. How does a sorely needed campaign to pressure the carriers to improve service imply a lack of credibility or impartiality? It's for all carriers, not just the one that ranked best. Honestly, you sound like you're a shareholder of Nextel. > Honestly, you sound like you're a shareholder of Nextel. Now that I've read some of your other posts and website, I see that you are very much biased towards Verizon, which would explain your need to validate this survey. That would also explain the bias against Nextel, as they seem to present the business model that VZ can't attain. BTW- no Nextel stock interest here. Just like to see the truth from time to time. > > No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nextel is not a carrier that an individual subscriber would choose, due to > their lack of coverage outside major urban areas. Care to provide the FACTS that back this up, as it does not appear to be something that AT&T admits to. > > The part of the article that Iam talking about showed a complete lack of > > understanding about the industry. Lack of knowledge is not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > roam onto other carriers outside areas with iDEN. Nextel is a very poor > choice for individual subscribers. Its only value proposition is PTT. Funny- unless they are violating Truth in Advertising standards, the facts would tend to disagree with that. The following are directly from their website: "Nextel serves 95 percent of America's Fortune 500 companies" (don't see AT&T saying anything even close to this) "Nextel and Nextel Partners, Inc., currently serve 293 of the top 300 U.S. markets." (Can you tell me how this qualifies as 'limited geographic coverage- it's more than Verizon itself claims) "Nextel and Nextel Partners service is available today in areas of the United States where approximately 248 million people live or work." (Hmmmmmm- that's a lot of people) "Nextel Communications, a Fortune 300 company based in Reston, VA, is a leading provider of fully integrated, wireless communications services and has built the largest guaranteed, all-digital, wireless network in the country." (I don't see any of the competition asking that this statement be retracted- its been a part of their websire for quire a while now) These are not mentioned by me as a Nextel advocate- only the facts as provided by each of these companies, who tend to promote their strengths and ignore their weaknesses when describing their companies. > >Was there any mention of the relatively small native network Verizon uses, > and the various roaming agreements that expand that network, and change on a > frequent basis? > > They do indeed mention the advantage of being able to roam with all the > carriers other than Nextel, yes. The only advantage to roaming is to the Company itself, in the ability to collect extra revenue. A true 'first class' provider would not need to roam or charge for it. > Honestly, you sound like you're a shareholder of Nextel. As I've said before, I'm not. I just happen to dig a little further, and attempt to not confuse my opinions and facts. > > > No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact. > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > country." (I don't see any of the competition asking that this statement be > retracted- its been a part of their websire for quire a while now) Some how I thought Sprint had the largest all digital network. 1) Is Nextel larger than Sprint? 2) Does Nextel use Guaranteed to not count Sprint because Sprint roams on analog networks? 3) Does Sprint have an analog cell someplace? > Some how I thought Sprint had the largest all digital network. > 1) Is Nextel larger than Sprint? > 2) Does Nextel use Guaranteed to not count Sprint because Sprint roams on > analog networks? > 3) Does Sprint have an analog cell someplace? I thought the same thing- but in reading the Sprint PCS newsgroup, it appears that analog is an option (don't know if it is strictly roaming or not). As far as Nextel being larger than Sprint, I wouldn't think so, either. What it may be is a case where the native network is larger than Sprint's, as I believe it is with Verizon. The advantage for PCS and VZW- they do expand the networks through roaming. The disadvantage to roaming for the consumer- higher costs and some features that don't function on a roaming partner's network. > > Some how I thought Sprint had the largest all digital network. > > 1) Is Nextel larger than Sprint? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for the consumer- higher costs and some features that don't function on a > roaming partner's network. Thanks Scott On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:39:17 -0700, "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything: > The advantage for PCS and VZW- >they do expand the networks through roaming. You just made the point that I was getting ready to. Nextel claims 293 top markets, more than anyone else, but a Nextel user is limited to just those 293 markets -- anyplace else, the phone is a paperweight. The Verizon user can make a call in many many places where Verizon itself doesn't provide service, AND in a lot of the nowhere in between. > The disadvantage to roaming >for the consumer- higher costs and some features that don't function on a >roaming partner's network. Features that don't work is not as bad as a phone that doesn't work. SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "I'm fine, sir, but I think the bus is going to have kittens." - Corp. Radar O'Reilly > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:39:17 -0700, "Scott Stephenson" > <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation > of life, the universe, and everything: > >> The advantage for PCS and VZW- they do expand the networks through roaming. > You just made the point that I was getting ready to. Nextel claims 293 top > markets, more than anyone else, but a Nextel user is limited to just those > 293 markets -- anyplace else, the phone is a paperweight. The Verizon user > can make a call in many many places where Verizon itself doesn't provide > service, AND in a lot of the nowhere in between. While 293 out of 300 sounds like a lot, it's the 300 that's misleading. Look at the Nextel maps and see just how small of an area that actually is. And as you point out, "the nowhere in between" is a big value proposition of other carriers, especially the ones that still sell handsets with AMPS capability. >> The disadvantage to roaming for the consumer- higher costs and some features that don't function on a roaming partner's network. > Features that don't work is not as bad as a phone that doesn't work. Exactly. And it's outside the major metro areas where you want your phone to at least function as a phone, if not as a web browser. This is why On-Star uses the ancient, but ubiquitous, AMPS network. Roadside call boxes use AMPS. Even when AMPS is not legally required to be kept in operation, it will almost certainly remain operational in areas where there is no alternate system. Having to pay 50-70 cents a minute to summon help out in the boonies is nothing, and of course 911 is still free anyway. Anyone that uses Nextel as their only phone will be very upset once they go outside one of those 293 markets, and really need to make or receive a call. Of course there are always pay phones and emergency call boxes, if they are convenient. One thing I noticed that often doesn't work while roaming is voice mail notification. I have to call the voice mail access number from my cell phone or from a landline. No biggie. As to Nextel's claim of serving more markets than any other carrier, it may be true, but of course it's meaningless for most subscribers, especially the subscribers to national plans such as Verizon's America's Choice or AT&T One Rate (on TDMA/AMPS). The AMPS, GSM, CDMA, and TDMA markets are served by a variety of carriers, but Nextel is the only iDEN carrier of any significance, and the only one trying to market iDEN as an alternative to cellular or PCS. Apple Computer serves more primary schools than any other micro-computer maker too. It'll be interesting to see if Nextel makes a bid for AT&T Wireless or for Sprint PCS. For a while it seemed as if Nextel was going to move to CDMA, then they stopped talking about it, see: http://wireless.newsfactor.com/perl/story/15780.html. Nextel covets high value business customers, which is where AT&T is very strong. >Some how I thought Sprint had the largest all digital network. Sprint has the largest all digital PCS network. The keyword is PCS. >1) Is Nextel larger than Sprint? I don't think it is ... but the coverage could be a little different .. they may cover more densely populated areas differently due to a different demographic customer base. >2) Does Nextel use Guaranteed to not count Sprint because Sprint roams on >analog networks? Sprint roams on other CDMA carriers (both cellular and PCS) as well as cellular AMPS. >3) Does Sprint have an analog cell someplace? They do not own any analog equipment that is in service. Tom Veldhouse > Care to provide the FACTS that back this up, as it does not appear to be something that AT&T admits to. Certainly. Here's some sources. You can find others by googling. http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/do/Baz-in-stat_mdr.RoEB_DSH.ht ml "The providers with most to lose <from portability> are those with the greatest share: AT&T Wireless -- ranked No. 1 in the enterprise and No. 2 in small business and Verizon Wireless -- ranked No. 2 in the enterprise and No. 1 in small business in terms of subscribers, respectively." http://www.instat.com/newmk.asp?ID=788 "AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless currently have the highest cellular penetration in the business environment, and therefore potentially stand the most to lose, as it pertains to that segment, on and after November 24th, 2003." http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/StockPicks/P67308.asp "The company is most dependent on business customers, so it's most vulnerable to those customers using number portability to drive down rates." As I stated, AT&T has more business customers in absolute numbers, but less as a percentage of their total customers. As does Verizon. > "Nextel serves 95 percent of America's Fortune 500 companies" (don't see > AT&T saying anything even close to this) "Implicature n. The aspect of meaning that a speaker conveys, implies, or suggests without directly expressing. Marketers maintain they are not in full control of consumer meaning-making processes and therefore, are only liable for a literal interpretation of their ads. Unsurprisingly, implicature has become a valued advertising technique; weak and unsubstantiated product claims can be easily reworked into convincing sales pitches that can potentially mislead consumers to infer more meaning than is actually proffered." I think I see the problem. You actually take advertising at face value, without understanding the facts. Nextel's statement is almost certainly true. AT&T could make a similar statement, maybe with an even higher percentage. The fact that Nextel has subscribers at 95% of the Fortune 500 companies does not mean that they have the most business subscribers, the 95% claim is irrelevant. However it does serve to mislead people who don't look at the facts. They think, 'gee, Nextel has 95% of the Fortune 500 business for wireless.' > "Nextel and Nextel Partners, Inc., currently serve 293 of the top 300 U.S. > markets." (Can you tell me how this qualifies as 'limited geographic > coverage- it's more than Verizon itself claims) You have to look at geographic area, not just markets. Again, it's implicature. Nextel would like people to think that they cover 97.7% of the area of the U.S., after all, that's what you get from 293/300. But of course everyone knows that they don't cover anywhere near this. Still, Nextel's coverage is fine for their primary target market as a two-way radio replacement for businesses. It is not fine for the non-business user who expects coverage wherever at least AMPS is available. The value of a CDMA or TDMA carrier, and to a lesser extent a GSM carrier, is that its subscribers are not limited to just its own coverage area, they can roam when necessary. With an iDEN phone you can't even call 911 out in the boonies. With a TDMA/AMPS, CDMA/AMPS phone, you can. > "Nextel and Nextel Partners service is available today in areas of the > United States where approximately 248 million people live or work." > (Hmmmmmm- that's a lot of people). Yes it's a lot of people, but it's just more implicature. Again, you have to look at the facts, not at clever marketing. They don't claim that the service is available where people play, vacation, or travel through. You have to evaluate marketing claims very, very carefully; this is another meaningless claim. > "Nextel Communications, a Fortune 300 company based in Reston, VA, is a > leading provider of fully integrated, wireless communications services and > has built the largest guaranteed, all-digital, wireless network in the > country." (I don't see any of the competition asking that this statement be > retracted- its been a part of their websire for quire a while now) Look at all those qualifiers! Yes it is all digital. No it is not the largest digital network. It is the largest _guaranteed_ all digital_network_. Why is it guaranteed to be all digital? Because you will NEVER roam onto an analog network with Nextel, while with Sprint PCS, you _may_ roam onto AMPS out in the boonies. This is a bad thing for Nextel, not a good thing! Now to be fair, Nextel is not alone with these stupid statements. Sprint PCS had been doing the same sort of misleading advertising with the "the largest all digital PCS network." Again, not the largest digital network, not even the largest all-digital network, just the largest all-digital PCS (1900 Mhz) network, (but without a "guarantee" that you will never end up on an analog network which is not part of Sprint, but which their phones will roam onto). Sorry, but I get so tired of this whole _all-digital_ schtick that Nextel and Sprint PCS use to mislead people. Sprint was the worst, with their old "The Clear Alternative to Cellular" ad campaign a few years ago. If challenged, they could claim that they were saying was that PCS was better than AMPS, but to the non-savvy consumer, they were claiming that PCS was better than other forms of digital service, which is not true. When one learns to instantly decode the implicature, and wireless carriers use a LOT of implicature, it makes you wary of such claims and makes you look at the motivation for a carrier to make them. When I saw "guaranteed all-digital," a warning bell went off that I've just lost coverage in vast areas of the U.S. that don't have any digital coverage. I don't get a warm-fuzzy that "guaranteed all-digital" is something to be happy about, but I can see how many people would think that "all-digital" was somehow an advantage. When you get past the cutesy cameras, web browsing, PTT, etc, what counts for most people is the ability to make and receive calls wherever they go; Nextel doesn't deliver this. But let's be fair, it was NEVER the intention of Nextel to deliver cellular-like coverage. Nextel was designed as a replacement for a two-way radio, not a substitute for cellular. "Walkie-talkies are more than just a feature; they're the foundation of Nextel," says Albert Lin, a telecom analyst with American Technology Research. > The only advantage to roaming is to the Company itself, in the ability to > collect extra revenue. A true 'first class' provider would not need to roam > or charge for it. Not true. The FCC granted two licenses for each area. No carrier has licenses in every area, even with the opening up of the PCS spectrum. Nor is it desirable for them to do so. It is not feasible for a national carrier to extend their competitive rates into rural areas, where the cost of installing infrastructure is much higher (on a per subscriber basis). Roaming benefits the subscriber, because without it they would have no coverage at all in large parts of the country. Roaming benefits the rural carriers because it provided additional revenue. Of course Nextel, and their customers, are "protected" from this by not being able to make calls at all in large areas of the country. I felt bad for the poor businessman I met, who was a Nextel subscriber, who had to run to Wal-Mart in Anchorage to buy a Tracfone. He should have been aware of Nextel's coverage BEFORE he traveled. Perhaps he fell for the implicature in their advertising too! > As I've said before, I'm not. I just happen to dig a little further, and > attempt to not confuse my opinions and facts. Keep digging. You haven't gone beyond wild (and incorrect) speculation yet. The facts are out there. You've been misled by very clever advertising because you are not familiar with the industry and how it works. <snipped out of courtesy to others.> I could take you on point by point, but frankly I'm much too tired and questioning too much to go into here. The only true point I will make is your lack of credibility, as exhibited by your complete bias towards certain carriers. I mention Nextel only because it seems to hit a particular sore spot with you. Why? I don't know, and don't really care. But to single them out on your websites with inaccurate information is laughable. You claim that they make no effort to go after the regular consumer, and yet they have spent millions (The Nextel Halftime Report, the Nextel NASCAR Cup) to get into the homes of regular consumers. You call your website "An Objective Guide to Wireless Carriers in New York City", and then make the following statements: "Nextel has never tried to market itself to customers for whom ubiquitous coverage is a necessity. Nextel has carved out a very profitable niche in servicing business customers but makes only token attempts to lure individual subscribers." (see above) "I originally did not include Nextel in this web site because I felt that it was unfair to compare them against conventional cellular carriers." (Hmmmm- they sell cellular service, but are not conventional enough to include. You need to ignore the one feature that differentiates them from the rest) "Nextel could improve by explicitly stating that their phones are not suitable for people that travel outside urban areas." (would the mountains of Colorado qualify as non-urban?) "High non-governmental fees that are ostensibly added to cover the cost of complying with government regulations. Verizon and T-Mobile, to their credit, have declined to add these fees so far." (Verizon and WNLP fee- need I say more?) I'll be more than happy to point out some more 'interesting' statements that question the objectivity of the site (not to mention citing surveys from 2002- the market has changed since then). It would appear that a little more 'updating' is needed to bring the site into 2004. I also like your "Mischief to Watch Out For" section. Most appear to be normal practices, and only a few appear to qualify as 'mischief'. It, like other sections of your site, put in question the word 'objective' that you so proudly disply on the home page. > <snipped out of courtesy to others.> > > I could take you on point by point, but frankly I'm much too tired and > questioning too much to go into here. I see. You can't dispute the facts. Bye. > > <snipped out of courtesy to others.> > > > > I could take you on point by point, but frankly I'm much too tired and > > questioning too much to go into here. > > I see. You can't dispute the facts. Bye. And you can't post facts- only opinions by the looks of your 'objective' website. Apparently can't defend it either, as you ignored the rest of the post. > You claim that they make no effort to go after the regular consumer, and yet > they have spent millions (The Nextel Halftime Report, the Nextel NASCAR Cup) > to get into the homes of regular consumers. You call your website "An > Objective Guide to Wireless Carriers in New York City", and then make the > following statements: Look at Nextel's own web site (which you are quite fond of quoting). http://nextel.com/about/corporateinfo/profile.shtml Target Audiences -Enterprise -General Business -Vertical Markets They don't mention going after the individual user, for obvious reasons. I know of none of my friends, relatives, or colleagues that would put up with Nextel's coverage unless they have another phone to use when travelling outside the urban core. The reason for the Nextel sponsorships is that they believe that the viewers for the shows they sponsor include the decision makers for the target audiences that they specify in their corporate profile. They don't expect much response from individuals that have no need for PTT, but they don't turn away these customers either. You seem to think I have it in for Nextel, but in reality it is you who were so upset over Nextel's ratings in the Consumer Reports survey that you came up with all sorts of bizarre and unsubstantiated excuses and rationalizations. At first I was shocked to see the stuff you posted, and how blatant the misleading statements on Nextel's site were. But when I look further, I'm less upset; even Nextel doesn't claim itself as a service that is a suitable replacement for regular cellular or PCS service. In the context of their stated target markets, their statements are less outrageous, though still misleading. I've updated part of my web site with some of the material you provided. http://www.nordicgroup.us/ssub/fraud.htm . You provided some excellent examples of how important it is to learn how to dissect marketing and advertising claims. We have a Nextel phone in our family. I have nothing against the company. Nextel serves its target audiences well, and has carved out a profitable niche. I originally declined to include Nextel on my own web sites. I felt that it was unfair to apply the same criteria to them as I applied to other carriers, especially the importance of ubiquitous coverage; their target customer is clearly not the person who cares about coverage outside the urban core. My web sites provide referenced facts, as well as informed opinions. The best that you can do is attack Consumer Reports for a well designed and well executed survey. It's because Consumer Reports has so much credibility that companies such as AT&T wireless have attacked them. I have to chuckle when I read the responses by the carriers and the trade association to the Consumer Reports survey. Cingular always responds to anything negative in the same way-they release a statement that details how much money they're spending to improve their network. AT&T produced an outright lie regarding the outcome of the survey, incorrectly claiming that the data didn't show significant gaps between carriers. T-Mobile didn't dispute the findings, but stated that they get good marks for customer service in other surveys. Sprint wisely kept quiet. Verizon explains the things that they've done to achieve the top spot. The CTIA always says something about how overall service is improving. >They don't mention going after the individual user, for obvious reasons. I >know of none of my friends, relatives, or colleagues that would put up with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for the shows they sponsor include the decision makers for the target >audiences that they specify in their corporate profile. They don't expect I'm not so sure that Nextel is trying to stay "out" of the individual market anymore -- especially with some of their recent price plans and Nextel trying to get into the "youth" market with Boost Mobile, which *Nextel now owns 100% of*. It seems to me to be more of Nextel not admitting to that part of the market where they're relatively weak. ;) I myself had Nextel for a little over a year; I left because I just had too many phones, T-Mobile's Sidekick proved to be even better than Nextel's WAP (the main reason I got Nextel in the first place), and because of coverage issues (Dunwoody and parts of Buckhead) that Nextel didn't seem to care about fixing and/or that got *worse* after system retunes. >further, I'm less upset; even Nextel doesn't claim itself as a service that >is a suitable replacement for regular cellular or PCS service. In the The fact remains that iDEN was designed to handle primarily DISPATCH (PTT) traffic and NOT interconnect ("cellular") traffic; some even go as far as to say that Nextel has twisted iDEN -- and ESMR -- into something that they aren't. FWIW, all of the non-Nextel-related iDEN/Harmony carriers in the US (i.e., SoLinc here in the Southeast, Airtel in Montana, and Nevada Wireless in Reno) focus heavily on the dispatch side and downplay the "cellular" features. -SC SignatureStanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune > >They don't mention going after the individual user, for obvious reasons. I > >know of none of my friends, relatives, or colleagues that would put up with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > *Nextel now owns 100% of*. It seems to me to be more of Nextel not > admitting to that part of the market where they're relatively weak. ;) They're not trying to stay out, but they're not making a big effort to be in either. I'd love to see a report of how many individual subscribers they have, for whom Nextel is there only phone. > I myself had Nextel for a little over a year; I left because I just > had too many phones, T-Mobile's Sidekick proved to be even better than > Nextel's WAP (the main reason I got Nextel in the first place), and > because of coverage issues (Dunwoody and parts of Buckhead) that > Nextel didn't seem to care about fixing and/or that got *worse* after > system retunes. I guess for residents of Dunwoody, it was where people work where Nextel has coverage. > >further, I'm less upset; even Nextel doesn't claim itself as a service that > >is a suitable replacement for regular cellular or PCS service. In the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Airtel in Montana, and Nevada Wireless in Reno) focus heavily on the > dispatch side and downplay the "cellular" features. As they should. But the only way Nextel can grow is to expand their markets. Especially now that all the other carriers are adding PTT, albeit a much poorer PTT. > > >They don't mention going after the individual user, for obvious reasons. > I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > either. I'd love to see a report of how many individual subscribers they > have, for whom Nextel is there only phone. Yeah- Dennis Franz buying bananas and Earnhart Jr. scoring a touchdown weren't targeted for the consumer market. Neither is Boost (Nextel owned prepaid), the NASCAR driver phones being released next month (all the execs want a picture of Ricky Rudd on their phone), the Phat Farm phones they've released, Nextel Retail Stores popping up to the tune of a couple of hundred a year or the camera phone being released later this year. And all of the big companies need Expenditure Control accounts (modified prepaid accounts for those with crappy credit)- another Nextel alternative. Now, who might all of these campaigns and programs be targeted towards? Could it be..............consumers? Your lack of objectivity comes shining through when Nextel is mentioned. I don't know why, and I guess I really don't care, but it does exist for all to see. You obviously haven't cared to do any homework about them, because you have this highly overinflated sense of all-knowing intelligence. And I don't expect you to understand any of the things mentioned in this post, because your brain obviously can not process anything contrary to your anything-but objective opinion. > I'm not so sure that Nextel is trying to stay "out" of the individual > market anymore -- especially with some of their recent price plans and > Nextel trying to get into the "youth" market with Boost Mobile, which > *Nextel now owns 100% of*. It seems to me to be more of Nextel not > admitting to that part of the market where they're relatively weak. ;) Maybe you're right after all! Just got a mailing from Nextel today, promoting their family plan. Interestingly, it is quite an honest mailing, and does not use any of the implicature on their web site, nor do they make any statements regarding coverage. It's all promoting PTT, and how useful it is with teenagers. Of course I have no teenagers yet, and when I do, they'll be spending a lot of time in areas with no Nextel coverage (skiing, camping, etc.), so I think I'll pass on Nextel's generous offer. OTOH, by the time my kids are teenagers Nextel will be quite different. They are one of the many suitors for AT&T. If they don't get AT&T I bet they'll go after Sprint PCS. They are anxious to expand beyond iDEN, one way or another. > > I'm not so sure that Nextel is trying to stay "out" of the individual > > market anymore -- especially with some of their recent price plans and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > suitors for AT&T. If they don't get AT&T I bet they'll go after Sprint PCS. > They are anxious to expand beyond iDEN, one way or another. Please give us any *evidence* you have that they are "anxious to expand beyond iDEN, one way or another." SignatureD.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762 davidjosborn at sbcglobal dot net > Please give us any *evidence* you have that they are "anxious to expand > beyond iDEN, one way or another." They would not be going after AT&T unless they wanted to expand beyond iDEN. In the past they've said that they're moving to CDMA, but have not done much in that direction. http://wireless.newsfactor.com/perl/story/15780.html. If they are to move beyond being a niche player then they're going to have to do something to go after the non-business customers, and the only way to do that is to offer CDMA or GSM. They can't afford to expand iDEN coverage across the country. This would be a plausible and workable theory. Nextel push to talk on IDEN networks, which is already working a+ but move all voice and phone calls and data to GSM networks. The end result even more capacity for PTT, larger footprint, and more cellular business. And a combined GSM & IDEN phone would quite easy to bring to market. The hardest part would be migrating everyone, but this would not have to be done right away. AL > They would not be going after AT&T unless they wanted to expand beyond iDEN. > In the past they've said that they're moving to CDMA, but have not done much [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > do that is to offer CDMA or GSM. They can't afford to expand iDEN coverage > across the country. > > I'm not so sure that Nextel is trying to stay "out" of the individual > > market anymore -- especially with some of their recent price plans and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > suitors for AT&T. If they don't get AT&T I bet they'll go after Sprint PCS. > They are anxious to expand beyond iDEN, one way or another. So, you think that Nextel is so cash flush that they can not only afford to buy SPCS, but to buy all their users new handsets to use the PCS system? Bob > > > I'm not so sure that Nextel is trying to stay "out" of the individual > > > market anymore -- especially with some of their recent price plans and [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Bob If I remember correctly, Nextel bought the rights to some Qualcomm technology about two years ago. I think one of the pieces to that was an iDen to CDMA bridge. > If I remember correctly, Nextel bought the rights to some Qualcomm > technology about two years ago. I think one of the pieces to that was an > iDen to CDMA bridge. They also are selling an iDEN/GSM 900 handset already. Presumaby a handset with other GSM bands would not be that difficult to develop. > > If I remember correctly, Nextel bought the rights to some Qualcomm > > technology about two years ago. I think one of the pieces to that was an > > iDen to CDMA bridge. > > They also are selling an iDEN/GSM 900 handset already. Presumaby a handset > with other GSM bands would not be that difficult to develop. Dual mode phones would certainly not present a problem. One thing that I saw yesterday in one of the four million articles written about AT&T was a mention of a Nextel- TMobile venture. Nothing more than a brief mention, but it got me thinking that this might be a better fit for Nextel- they would pick up coverage in many places, and already provide coverage in the major markets where TMobile has no native network. >Dual mode phones would certainly not present a problem. One thing that I >saw yesterday in one of the four million articles written about AT&T was a >mention of a Nextel- TMobile venture. Nothing more than a brief mention, >but it got me thinking that this might be a better fit for Nextel- they >would pick up coverage in many places, and already provide coverage in the >major markets where TMobile has no native network. Keep in mind that if Nextel does aquire someone like T-Mobile where they could change up their GSM/iDen phones slightly to operate on the 800/1900 GSM bands as well as on the SMR band that they currently operate on, all is well and good. However, if T-Mobile has no spectrum in a market and Nextel does, the Nextel/iDen spectrum is NOT the same as the 800/1900 Cellular/PCS spectrum so the buy out wouldn't do the T-Mobile customers any good in that market - the frequency bands are not interchangable. In other words, they couldn't put the T-Mobile customers on their SMR frequencies. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >Dual mode phones would certainly not present a problem. One thing that I > >saw yesterday in one of the four million articles written about AT&T was a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > frequency bands are not interchangable. In other words, they couldn't put the > T-Mobile customers on their SMR frequencies. True, but TMobile is currently getting the spectrum from someone in most of those markets, and good business sense would say that any purchase would be contingent on continuation of roaming agreements for a set period of time- long enough to build out in those areas. Any area where TMobile doesn't have spectrum now would continue to be just that- a dead area. > So, you think that Nextel is so cash flush that they can not only afford to > buy SPCS, but to buy all their users new handsets to use the PCS system? Don't know, but they're interested in AT&T, which will certainly be more expensive than Sprint, and which would also require new handsets if subscribers want both iDEN and GSM together. It'd be a gradual transition anyway, they would not have to buy new phones for everyone since both systems would remain operational. It's not like TDMA to GSM where the TDMA will be turned off. You're not going to get good PTT on GSM or CDMA, and you 're not going to get good coverage on iDEN. If Nextel wants to grow beyond a niche player then they have to do something. Especially because for many people, the PTT on CDMA and GSM is adequate, even though it's not as good as on iDEN. > It's not like TDMA to GSM where the TDMA >will be turned off. *If* and that's a big if TDMA is turned off it's probably not going to be for another 7 to 10 years. I'd be very surprised if someone didn't have to replace their equipment out of necessity or probably even desire to over that amount of time. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply > > It's not like TDMA to GSM where the TDMA > >will be turned off. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have to replace their equipment out of necessity or probably even > desire to over that amount of time. The carriers have already said that they will turn off TDMA once they transition enough people to GSM. TDMA coverage is already being worsened in some areas. I.e., in the San Francisco Bay Area, the number of TDMA sites is decreasing. Even though in theory there is still full coverage, there are more and more dead spots within the coverage area. > the number of TDMA sites is >decreasing. Why do you say this? Although there is a lot of new GSM sites being installed with very few new TDMA (I have only installed 2 for AT&T Wireless recently) NONE of the TDMA sites are being turned off. This is true for AT&T Wireless and Cingular, I can't speak to the other carriers but I suspect that the statement is probably true there too! I haven't been home (to San Francisco) recently to know about changed there other than knowing that the carriers are not taking any TDMA out of service yet. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message