John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:9bus039p4obrkdqqgap15icv90jnp35vui@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:17:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <460dd2b7$0$27237$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
lf the area of the lower 48, with
>>many variations within the region.
>>
>>Even though the Consumer's Union survey only targeted Consumer's
>>Reports subscribers, any differences between subscribers and the
>>population at large cancelled out, since subscribers were only rating
>>their own carrier's quality.
>
> Nope. Statistics don't work that way. CU surveys (as I've explained
> several times) suffer from serious flaws:

Oh, sweet Jesus, here we go again.


> * Non-representative population

They are not aliens, therefore they are a very representative population.

> * Self-selected sample

Just as any survey is. I'm not aware of a survey where a gun is held to
the head of the participantys to force them to take the survewy against
their will.

> * Small sample size when broken down by region

Untrue.

> * Improper methods (e.g., lumping together D-AMPS and GSM,
> ENS and non-ENS, iDEN and CDMA2000)

Impropoer by whose definition? Yours doesn't count.

> * Poor methodology

You don't have a clue about what you're talking about- what a surprise.
You have no practical experience on the subject, so why don't you just shut
your hole and wrap yourself up in your CIngular blanket.


> The tarnished credibility of Consumers Union is also apparent from the
> child seat and other recent debacles:
> <http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs...070119/AUTO01/
> 701190403/1148>
>

And yet the results are the same as every other survey done- that is all of
the proof you need.