Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> Well ... I live in Minneapolis and I asked a lot of people about their
> experience with various providers before deciding to ditch Sprint PCS
> (including carry around a cell phone with a T-Mobile and a Cingular prepaid
> card in it). I came to the same conclusion as the article for Minneapolis.
> In fact, I would have to rate Cingular last, not based upon my own experience,
> but based upon all the people that I know that use Cingular. Bar none, each
> and every one of them claimed they had poor reception; usually based upon
> dropped calls or not receiving call [just going to voicemail]. In fact, my
> Daughter's friend was over and she was leaving her phone by the window. I
> asked why and she said she just doesn't get calls unless it has three bars.
> Odd ... it got three bars around the entire house. She said it is missing her
> calls and so she thought that was why.

The difference between the claims of Cingular and Verizon is that
Verizon has had their claims corroborated by independent studies and
surveys numerous times. Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, and other
organizations that are not being paid by the carriers have come to the
same conclusion.

If Verizon were out there making their coverage claims and every
independent organization disputed them, as is the case with Cingular,
then Verizon's claims would be seen simply as advertising hype, as
Cingular's claims are viewed by most organizations. Shills like Navas,
that constantly make unsupported claims that are contradicted by every
reputable organization, do no favor to the companies that they are
shilling for.

Bravo to Consumer Reports for calling Cingular on their unsupported
claim of "fewest dropped calls."