On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:27:15 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <457654af$0$82564$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:i16cn255bq40uk9gj37p4vsekflirk4i7l@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:00:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <45761641$0$82536$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>>> It's pretty amusing that Consumer Reports joined the chorus in
>>>> criticizing Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" ads, since it's
>>>> demonstrably untrue, only Sprint had any cities with more dropped call
>>>> than Cingular, with Verizon and T-Mobile having the fewest dropped
>>>> calls.
>>> The Cingular claim hasn't been challenged successfully.
>>
>> It would appear that the Consumer Reports report did just that, Novice.
>
>Well Consumer Reports does state that their results are for the metro
>area. It could be that Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" is based on
>data from other areas that Cingular asked the company conducting the
>test to go to. With coverage maps of the major carriers available, as
>well as knowledge of the locations of both their own and competitor's
>towers. Cingular could put together a list of places for the Telephia to
>do their testing that would give the desired result. Certainly
>Cingular's fewest dropped calls claim is not true in the 20 metro areas
>that Consumer Reports surveyed. Cingular refuses to disclose the test
>methodology or raw data, so all the experts believe that they are either
>lying about the whole thing, or they designed the test to look at
>micro-sized areas where they have a coverage advantage.

And then we have Verizon's best network claims based solely on its own
secret internal testing, which of course lack any credibility
whatsoever. So why not criticize Verizon?

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