On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:17:59 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <457779d3$0$82538$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
>> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
>> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
>> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
>> carriers should emulate.
>
>Yes, that's what I intended. However I should also point out that out in
>the western region, T-Mobile is different than the old Voicestream that
>people back east are used to. Originally, T-Mobile did a swap with
>Cingular, where Cingular let T-Mobile use their 1900 MHz western
>network, and T-Mobile let Cingular use their 1900 MHz NY network.

Actually a joint venture.

>The
>1900 MHz GSM network out west was particularly bad (I had it for a
>year), and it still isn't the greatest.

Actually quite good.

>When Cingular took over AT&T
>Wireless, T-Mobile got the Cingular 1900 MHz network.

Actually a sale to T-Mobile by Cingular, with a purchase base of network
use by Cingular subscribers.

>Because Cingular,
>formerly Pacific Bell Wireless was so late to the party, they had too
>problems, first they couldn't put towers in all the prime locations that
>AT&T and Verizon had towers, and second they were stuck at the less
>desirable 1900 MHz, which is big disadvantage in terms of coverage.

Actually no real disadvantage.

>I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
>least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
>service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
>potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
>discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
>in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
>non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.
>
>It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
>network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
>Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
>especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
>than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
>Cingular, and far below Verizon.

That T-Mobile did so well with less coverage than Cingular, given
network sharing agreements, actually shows the survey to be unreliable.

Cingular actually has the best coverage in the Bay Area. T-Mobile
isn't bad either. Sprint and Verizon are demonstrably worse in a number
of areas, including significant parts of the East Bay.

Take your Verizon advocacy to a more appropriate forum.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND:

1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.

2. Studies of carriers, including those he purports to cite, actually
show small differences between carriers (not a "wide margin" as Steven
claims) that are often within the margin of error. For example, recent
JD Powers ratings of major carrier call quality ranged from only +/-2%
to only +/-5% in its six regions.

3. Results for Cingular and Sprint-Nextel are patently distorted by
combining dissimilar technologies and networks (e.g., TDMA/D-AMPS + old
GSM + new GSM; CDMA + iDEN). This is roughly like claiming the average
person has one breast.

4. CU surveys can't be validly generalized because they are a
self-selected sample of a non-representative universe (CR subscribers).
(Usenet of course has a similar problem.)

5. Results showing T-Mobile with better network performance than
Cingular in the West are patently nonsensical, given that Cingular uses
the same network as T-Mobile (the old Cingular "orange" network), plus
the extensive ATTWS ("blue" network).

6. Verizon doesn't have coverage in some of the areas Steven claims;
e.g., large sections of Skyline Blvd, and nearby sections of Page Mill
Road and Big Basin Way.

7. All carriers have coverage holes. There is no one best carrier in
all areas, as Steven claims. I've previously identified some areas
where Cingular coverage is better than Verizon coverage; e.g.,
waterfront parts of Corte Madera.

8. Steven's claim that 1900 MHz takes "4x to 5x" the number of towers as
compared to 800/850 MHz is patently absurd.

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