On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:33:41 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <455a6e73$0$88699$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dave wrote:
>
>>> Dave- be warned that the only hard-on in this group is the result of John
>>> Navas' blind obsession with Cingular. In his eyes, they are never at
>>> fault. He will eventually blame your problem on your phone or dismiss it
>>> as anecdotal rubbish.
>
>I'm technology agnostic, whatever works the best, at an acceptable price
>level, is a good choice.

LOL! That's pretty funny.

>In the San Francisco Bay Area, all the independent surveys reach the
>same conclusion, Verizon has the best coverage and quality by a very
>wide margin. Part of the reason is that the outlying areas have coverage
>by the legacy AMPS network that Cingular and T-Mobile can't duplicate.

Cingular actually has the best coverage in the Bay Area.

>If you're just comparing digital coverage, then Cingular and Verizon are
>closer in coverage, but the inherent technological advantages of CDMA
>over the older GSM technology still give the edge to Verizon for now.

There is no significant technology difference. (So much for your
agnosticism, which didn't even last to the end of your message.)

>I'd urge the original poster to go look at the independent surveys of
>coverage done by Consumer Reports and Bay Area Consumer Checkbook.

Of course. Likewise JD Powers, which is more accurate, and which shows
that differences between carriers are relatively small.

>The
>trial period that the carriers offer is not long enough to determine
>whether or not a carrier provides acceptable coverage.

Sure it is (assuming you actually leave the house).

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>