Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

RBM wrote:
> I won't disagree, they do indeed suck. But they also have the best network,
> and at the end of the day, it's a phone

Yeah, I don't understand those that fall in love with one carrier or
another. I can list multiple issues with each carrier, from Verizon's
crippling of handsets, to T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T's coverage issues.
But at the end of the day, it's where your phone actually works.

I think the reason that Verizon has been so much more successful than
AT&T in signing up new contract customers is because indeed it is "the
network" that is the deciding issue for more customers than any other
consideration.

Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
Cingular/AT&T. You can always find specific areas where on carrier may
have coverage where another does not, but overall, when you look at
every survey, from every independent entity, the facts are clear.

Verizon is gaining more new contract customers than AT&T despite the
lack of the iPhone, and despite a poorer selection of handsets.

Here's a good article about the subject:

"High-Value Customers

Though it added 2 million subscribers in the fourth quarter, Verizon
appeared to lose ground to rival AT&T Wireless, which grew its own
subscriber base by 2.7 million customers during the same period.
However, Verizon's net gain of 1.6 million customers for its post-paid
plan easily exceeded AT&T's comparable post-paid numbers.

The higher value of Verizon's post-paid gains becomes evident when the
wireless revenue numbers of the rivals are compared. Verizon Wireless
grew revenue by 13.3 percent to $11.44 billion during the fourth
quarter, beating the comparable $11.36 billion figure posted by AT&T
Wireless. Verizon also was able to claim bragging rights for having a
customer turnover rate of just 1.2 percent. By comparison, AT&T's churn
rate in the fourth quarter was 1.7 percent."

"http://business.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13000C09MD22"

> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
> Cingular/AT&T.

On what planet? At worst, Cingular was always just as good as Verizon.
Speaking in terms of someone who has always worked jobs where he was
required to travel all over the U.S. That is, cingular might be better in
some specific areas, verizon might be better in some specific areas,
overall they were always EQUAL. I've had to deal with outrageous billing
errors with Verizon (errors that Verizon admitted to -in writing-, and yet
refused to correct), never had that problem with Cingular.

There are horror stories from both sides. The fact is, AT WORST, Cingular
was always equal with Verizon in terms of both coverage and customer
service.

There is a PERCEPTION that Verizon is better on both counts, mainly because
of all the millions of dollars that Verizon spends on television
advertising. (money well spent, I'd say...considering how many people
they've snowed with their ad blitz) -Dave

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:fo7k3b$h1d$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
>> Cingular/AT&T.
>
> On what planet? At worst, Cingular was always just as good as Verizon.
> Speaking in terms of someone who has always worked jobs where he was
> required to travel all over the U.S. That is, cingular might be better in
> some specific areas, verizon might be better in some specific areas,
> overall they were always EQUAL. I've had to deal with outrageous billing
> errors with Verizon (errors that Verizon admitted to -in writing-, and yet
> refused to correct), never had that problem with Cingular.
>
> There are horror stories from both sides. The fact is, AT WORST, Cingular
> was always equal with Verizon in terms of both coverage and customer
> service.
>
> There is a PERCEPTION that Verizon is better on both counts, mainly
> because of all the millions of dollars that Verizon spends on television
> advertising. (money well spent, I'd say...considering how many people
> they've snowed with their ad blitz) -Dave

Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
didn't drop with another

>

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:48:40 -0500, "RBM" <rbm@noemail.com> wrote in
<47a7a444$0$25066$607ed4bc@cv.net>:

>"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
>news:fo7k3b$h1d$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>> There is a PERCEPTION that Verizon is better on both counts, mainly
>> because of all the millions of dollars that Verizon spends on television
>> advertising. (money well spent, I'd say...considering how many people
>> they've snowed with their ad blitz) -Dave
>
>Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
>I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
>didn't drop with another

All well and good for you, but that doesn't mean Verizon has better
coverage in general. There are many others (including me) for whom
Verizon has worse coverage than AT&T Wireless. It all depends on where
you are. No one carrier has the best coverage in general.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On 2008-02-04, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I think the reason that Verizon has been so much more successful than
> AT&T in signing up new contract customers is because indeed it is "the
> network" that is the deciding issue for more customers than any other
> consideration.
[...]
> Verizon is gaining more new contract customers than AT&T despite the
> lack of the iPhone, and despite a poorer selection of handsets.

You know, you keep going on about how wonderful Verizon's contract
customers are, but if that made a big difference wouldn't you
expect to see that somewhere in Verizon's top-line numbers? Verizon's
ARPU over their whole service is $51.00, while AT&T's ARPU, including
all those prepaid and wholesale deadbeats, is $50.28, a whopping 1.4%
difference. AT&T's service revenue (the "R" in ARPU) is about 3% higher
than Verizon's which, given that AT&T had 5% more customers and 1.4%
less ARPU, is what you'd expect. If the only thing all those contract
customers is getting Verizon is 1.4% more ARPU then I'd suggest you are
drawing a distinction that makes no (well 1.4%) difference, and
repeating it over and over again doesn't change that. Where's the beef?
There's barely a hair of difference between the two companies' top line
financial performance, and if you can't measure a difference in dollars
then what does it matter?

The only place Verizon excels compared to AT&T is in selling their
crappy handsets: Verizon's equipment revenues were 34% higher than
AT&T last quarter, this is the (sole) reason Verizon's overall revenue
exceeded AT&T's by a bit. I can only guess at why this might be so,
but I don't think the difference in contract customer numbers (11%?)
is near enough to explain 34%, especially since prepaid and wholesale
customers need handsets too and AT&T has more of them. My guess is
hence that the difference between Verizon and AT&T is at least in part
due to the fact that Verizon has a monopoly over the handsets that can
be used on its network while AT&T's network is open, so AT&T has to
actually compete for handset business with the likes of unbranded
retailers and customers migrating from T-Mobile. I can hence see why
Verizon's VP of Very Accurate Information (Sarbannes-Oxley Compliance
Division) might respond to the suggestion of opening up Verizon's
handset choice by blaming unlocked handsetsfor computer viruses,
child porn, theft, high European roaming rates, and whatever other
evil he thought up in this one

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yufzwb

at least before Verizon decided an open network was a great thing so
they'll get around to doing something about it some time next year,
maybe. Monopolies are excellent if you can keep them.

In any case, I can't find anything in the top line numbers which
would suggest that Verizon's customers are particularly wonderful
compared to AT&T's, and it really seems like it's not the network,
it's the handset (monopoly).

Dennis Ferguson

Dave wrote:
>> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
>> Cingular/AT&T.
>
> On what planet?

Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area), and
Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes, and
thus with extremely low margins of error.

In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.

The markets I'm most familiar with are the SF Bay Area, New York City,
and Southern California. In all three, my experiences confirm what all
the expert surveys show.

It actually goes beyond what all the surveys show though. The surveys
are of users in metro areas, and while they do by default include
coverage of users in their travels, where Verizon excels to an even
greater degree is in rural areas, even without AMPS included. When you
include AMPS coverage, which is still extensive in the non-urban areas,
the advantage is tremendous. Even when Verizon and AT&T turn off their
AMPS networks, rural carriers have indicated that they will leave their
AMPS networks in place for the foreseeable future.

I always bring along a phone on Cingular/AT&T when I travel, just to
test the differences. Last year, in Oregon, far north California, the
Sierra Nevada, and Canada, the advantage of CDMA and AMPS was
significant. In many cases it was roaming onto other CDMA networks, and
occasionally AMPS, but in most cases it was native coverage. In short,
all the surveys and tests were confirmed.

Where did you get the idea that Cingular/AT&T was anywhere near the
level of coverage of Verizon. Do you have any citations or references,
or are you pulling a Navas? I'd love to see some evidence to the
contrary. I'm not married to any carrier. The best Cingular could do was
the bogus "fewest dropped calls" so-called survey, where even the survey
company said that their interpretation of the results was incorrect.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:11:24 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a7c525$0$84189$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dave wrote:
>>> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
>>> Cingular/AT&T.
>>
>> On what planet?
>
>Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area), and
>Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes, and
>thus with extremely low margins of error.
>
>In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
>
>The markets I'm most familiar with are the SF Bay Area, New York City,
>and Southern California. In all three, my experiences confirm what all
>the expert surveys show.
>
>It actually goes beyond what all the surveys show though. The surveys
>are of users in metro areas, and while they do by default include
>coverage of users in their travels, where Verizon excels to an even
>greater degree is in rural areas, even without AMPS included. When you
>include AMPS coverage, which is still extensive in the non-urban areas,
>the advantage is tremendous. Even when Verizon and AT&T turn off their
>AMPS networks, rural carriers have indicated that they will leave their
>AMPS networks in place for the foreseeable future.
>
>I always bring along a phone on Cingular/AT&T when I travel, just to
>test the differences. Last year, in Oregon, far north California, the
>Sierra Nevada, and Canada, the advantage of CDMA and AMPS was
>significant. In many cases it was roaming onto other CDMA networks, and
>occasionally AMPS, but in most cases it was native coverage. In short,
>all the surveys and tests were confirmed.
>
>Where did you get the idea that Cingular/AT&T was anywhere near the
>level of coverage of Verizon. Do you have any citations or references,
>or are you pulling a Navas? I'd love to see some evidence to the
>contrary. I'm not married to any carrier. The best Cingular could do was
>the bogus "fewest dropped calls" so-called survey, where even the survey
>company said that their interpretation of the results was incorrect.

Pretty much everything there is wildly fabricated.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing
> scheme. I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one
> carrier, and didn't drop with another

I take it you are one of many who fled from nextel/sprint recently?
-Dave

>
> The only place Verizon excels compared to AT&T is in selling their
> crappy handsets: Verizon's equipment revenues were 34% higher than
> AT&T last quarter, this is the (sole) reason Verizon's overall revenue
> exceeded AT&T's by a bit. I can only guess at why this might be so,

Oh!!! I can answer that one!!! When we were verizon customers, we switched
handsets quite frequently. We had to. Selection was limited to (all crap)
when we signed up. New models came out that we hoped were not as crappy.
Can't tell much testing them in the store, so we bought more crap, hoping
that they'd be better than what we had. Damn. And of course, you can't
just buy any handset and use it on Verizon, as the phones are locked to
verizon and don't have the chip you can swap, like ATT/Cingular and
T-Mobile, for example.

So Verizon customers have to change handsets frequently, attempting to
finally find a handset that they like. They never will, as Verizon doesn't
offer anything close to good quality in handsets... just AVERAGE quality, at
best. I just checked the verizon wireless web site and they seem to be
offering dozens of models of exactly 3 makes:
LG (Goldstar)
Motorola
Samsung

Samsung is OK usually, but the other two are always (ALWAYS) crap...
especially Motorola, which is to be avoided at all costs, even if you have
to pay an early termination fee and switch providers!!!

I was so happy to ditch Verizon just so I could get a decent handset again.
We are now using various recent models of Nokia handsets. For people who
(eventually) realize that all that matters in a cellular handset is
reception, voice quality and battery life (in that order), you simply can't
beat Nokia. I've driven across several states (literally) on the same phone
call (without getting dropped even once) with a nokia handset. Yes, I said
several states. It doesn't MATTER what network you are on, you simply won't
be able to DO that with a non-nokia handset. Too bad about Verizon not
offering Nokia anything (did they ever?). -Dave

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47a7c525$0$84189$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Dave wrote:
>>> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
>>> Cingular/AT&T.
>>
>> On what planet?
>
> Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area), and
> Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes, and thus
> with extremely low margins of error.
>
> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in coverage
> in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three others. AT&T
> and Sprint were far, far behind.

I read the same report and laughed my ASS off!!!

CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable consumer
resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably HATE it.
-Dave

Dave wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:47a7c525$0$84189$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Dave wrote:
>>>> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
>>>> Cingular/AT&T.
>>>
>>> On what planet?
>>
>> Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area), and
>> Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes, and
>> thus with extremely low margins of error.
>>
>> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>> others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
>
> I read the same report and laughed my ASS off!!!
>
> CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable
> consumer resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably
> HATE it. -Dave

As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
newsgroups!).

Dave wrote:
>>
>> The only place Verizon excels compared to AT&T is in selling their
>> crappy handsets: Verizon's equipment revenues were 34% higher than
>> AT&T last quarter, this is the (sole) reason Verizon's overall revenue
>> exceeded AT&T's by a bit. I can only guess at why this might be so,
>
>
> Oh!!! I can answer that one!!! When we were verizon customers, we
> switched handsets quite frequently. We had to. Selection was limited
> to (all crap) when we signed up. New models came out that we hoped were
> not as crappy. Can't tell much testing them in the store, so we bought
> more crap, hoping that they'd be better than what we had. Damn. And of
> course, you can't just buy any handset and use it on Verizon, as the
> phones are locked to verizon and don't have the chip you can swap, like
> ATT/Cingular and T-Mobile, for example.
>
> So Verizon customers have to change handsets frequently, attempting to
> finally find a handset that they like. They never will, as Verizon
> doesn't offer anything close to good quality in handsets... just AVERAGE
> quality, at best. I just checked the verizon wireless web site and they
> seem to be offering dozens of models of exactly 3 makes:
> LG (Goldstar)
> Motorola
> Samsung
>
> Samsung is OK usually, but the other two are always (ALWAYS) crap...
> especially Motorola, which is to be avoided at all costs, even if you
> have to pay an early termination fee and switch providers!!!

Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray "brick"
about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I replaced
that ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served me well for
six years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to work and meet
my needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two to four years. I
know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend money to to replace a
working phone just because I CAN. Anyway, that's just Verizon's "hook"
to get me to sign a new contract. . . . I've spent more time WITHOUT a
contract, than with. . . . It doesn't do a thing for me!

When the old phone bites the dust or when a new phone will do something
I NEED and the old one won't, THEN I'll buy a new one. Each time I've
replaced a phone, it has been because the battery was starting to fail
and I couldn't see buying a replacement battery for an antique!

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:21:29 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a7d593$0$84198$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dave wrote:

>> CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable
>> consumer resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably
>> HATE it. -Dave
>
>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. ...

I don't even hold a candle to you in that department, Steven.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
> twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray "brick"
> about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I replaced
> that ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served me well for
> six years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to work and meet
> my needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two to four years. I
> know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend money to to replace a
> working phone just because I CAN. Anyway, that's just Verizon's "hook"
> to get me to sign a new contract. . . . I've spent more time WITHOUT a
> contract, than with. . . . It doesn't do a thing for me!

Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the UI.

>> Samsung is OK usually, but the other two are always (ALWAYS) crap...
>> especially Motorola, which is to be avoided at all costs, even if you
>> have to pay an early termination fee and switch providers!!!
>
> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
> twelve years and have been satisfied!

Anyone can get used to mediocrity. To be fair, motorola does put out a
decent handset from time to time. At best, these decent Motorola handsets
are not QUITE up to Nokia quality, but some come close. Too bad about the
other 999 shitty handsets motorola foists off on the unsuspecting public for
every good one they produce. The last good motorola handset was a
T720/T730. Unfortunately, even THAT one got a bad rep, because the
instruction manual was WRONG. Battery life issues were caused by owners
IMPROPERLY charging the batteries because they did the right thing and READ
THE MANUAL.

Basically, the battery needed to be charged for at least 12 or 24 hours
(forget which) but the manual was vague enough to say something like "charge
until the indicator shows full"... which would happen in as little as 15
minutes. And then the memory effect killed the batteries quick. Thus you
had lots of Motorola owners complaining that they need to charge their
(FAIRLY NEW) batteries several times a day, when (if properly charged) they
would last several days.

But if you like Motorola, I am dead serious when I suggest that you would
probably LOVE Nokia. For starters, unless you are tone deaf, sound quality
will be about 1000% improved, just from switching from Motorola (anything)
to Nokia (anything). It will literally be like switching from a
tin-can-and-string type sound quality to a land-line-telephone-replacement
quality. Your reception will be at least 30% better with Nokia, assuming
the motorola and Nokia were compatible with the same network. This
translates to a lot less dropped calls and a lot less (what? WHAT?
WHAT!!!!?????!?!!) A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal bars,
calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!), calls do not
drop, and sound quality is superb. Then you think back and remember that in
the same area, you couldn't even connect a call with the motorola and the
quality difference is painfully clear. At best, motorola will never be
qualified to polish the boots of nokia. Nokia is what motorola would like
to be but (sadly) will never be.

In case anybody is wondering, I've had to carry many motorola handsets (no
choice, that's what various employers have given me, without asking or
caring about my input). In all cases, I've relied on my personal nokia (and
some other, but mostly nokia) brand handsets to bail me out when the
motorolas fell short. In some cases, the two handsets I was carrying were
on the same network. Motorola would often show no signal/no service, and
I'd be chatting on the nokia handset (off and on) all day in the same areas
where I couldn't connect ONE call with a motorola handset on the same
network and the same towers!!! And no, there was never anything wrong with
the motorola handsets. They were all working exactly as designed,
unfortunately. I say unfortunately as (in my opinion) they were ALL
defective, but the tech guys of various cell providers all disagreed with me
and refused to repair or replace the motorola handsets, even if I pointed
out that the nokia handset ON THEIR NETWORK worked where the motorola
didn't.... -Dave

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47a7dff4$0$84201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
>> twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray "brick"
>> about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I replaced that
>> ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served me well for six
>> years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to work and meet my
>> needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two to four years. I
>> know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend money to to replace a
>> working phone just because I CAN. Anyway, that's just Verizon's "hook"
>> to get me to sign a new contract. . . . I've spent more time WITHOUT a
>> contract, than with. . . . It doesn't do a thing for me!
>
> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the
> UI.

I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
improved it greatly. Unfortunately, the radio portion always has sucked,
and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if you've ever
used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you would quickly
realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas really does suck,
badly. -Dave

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:33:07 -0500, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in
<fo8osu$4jm$1@registered.motzarella.org>:

>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:47a7dff4$0$84201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net.. .

>> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the
>> UI.
>
>I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
>improved it greatly.

True, although current handsets crash too much, and carrier customizing
can screw up the functionality, as in the case of the Cingular-branded
V3xx.
<http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola#Cingular-branded_V3xx>
<http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola#Modding_Cingular_V3xx>

The big problem for Motorola in the UI department is that it's trying to
support too many platforms.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/04/motorola_phone_business_analysis/>

>Unfortunately, the radio portion always has sucked,
>and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if you've ever
>used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you would quickly
>realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas really does suck,
>badly.

I've had several of both, and find the better Motorola handsets to be
just as good as the better Nokia handsets in the radio department.
Where Motorola has fallen short is in some of its cheaper handsets, like
the V180.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:30:47 -0500, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in
<fo8op4$44r$1@registered.motzarella.org>:

>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
>> twelve years and have been satisfied!
>
>Anyone can get used to mediocrity. To be fair, motorola does put out a
>decent handset from time to time. At best, these decent Motorola handsets
>are not QUITE up to Nokia quality, but some come close.

Every bit as good in my experience.

>Too bad about the
>other 999 shitty handsets motorola foists off on the unsuspecting public for
>every good one they produce.

While Motorola has produced some poor handsets in the radio department,
like the V180, those have been in the minority.

>The last good motorola handset was a
>T720/T730.

Both the V5xx series and RAZR series are actually quite good.

>But if you like Motorola, I am dead serious when I suggest that you would
>probably LOVE Nokia.

I've had several of both, and give the edge to Motorola. My Motorola
V3xx is better than any Nokia I've tried.

>For starters, unless you are tone deaf, sound quality
>will be about 1000% improved, just from switching from Motorola (anything)
>to Nokia (anything). It will literally be like switching from a
>tin-can-and-string type sound quality to a land-line-telephone-replacement
>quality.

My V3xx has excellent sound quality. Have you ever tried one?

>Your reception will be at least 30% better with Nokia, assuming
>the motorola and Nokia were compatible with the same network. This
>translates to a lot less dropped calls and a lot less (what? WHAT?
>WHAT!!!!?????!?!!) A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
>into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
>handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal bars,
>calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!), calls do not
>drop, and sound quality is superb. Then you think back and remember that in
>the same area, you couldn't even connect a call with the motorola and the
>quality difference is painfully clear. At best, motorola will never be
>qualified to polish the boots of nokia. Nokia is what motorola would like
>to be but (sadly) will never be.

Again, that's not my experience with the Motorola V5xx series and the
V3xx against several Nokia handsets -- the Motorola handsets have
performed as well or better than the Nokia handsets.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in news:47A7DC93.30204
@comcast.net:

> When the old phone bites the dust or when a new phone will do something
> I NEED and the old one won't, THEN I'll buy a new one. Each time I've
> replaced a phone, it has been because the battery was starting to fail
> and I couldn't see buying a replacement battery for an antique!
>
>
>

Anybody got a rubber duckie antenna for the original Motorola Brick
handheld? I loaned it out to someone who was traveling on an emergency so
he'd have an emergency analog phone for the boonies, and the black rubber
just split apart when it got bent. The phone is perfect and still works
but I want to keep it original. It's quite a piece of history, you know.

$1.99 at a thrift shop. I have 2 battery packs I restored at Batteries
Plus, the 12V car cord that replaces the batteries for mobile, the carrying
case, even the manual.

A real Motorola made by Motorola, not the Chinese slavers, you can't hurt
it.....

That Star Tac was the best phone Motorola ever made....

The shrink tubing I covered the antenna coil with looks like hell on the
brick.

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in
news:fo8op4$44r$1@registered.motzarella.org:

> A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
> into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
> handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal
> bars, calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!),
> calls do not drop, and sound quality is superb

This comment about Nokia is only about cellular radio bands.....

The Nokia N800 Linux internet tablet has the most sensitive 802.11b/g
transceiver I have ever seen and it has no external antenna! The silly
thing can connect and use wifi hotspots my Gateway laptop cannot even
detect! It's Bluetooth transceiver is also very hot. It will successfully
connect to my MotoROKR Z6m DUN to the internet on EVDO when the tablet is
way beyond Bluetooth range...60' away from the phone in the bedroom on
charge because the Nokia killed it streaming video and audio...(c;

If the Nokia phones are as hot as the N800 wifi/bluetooth radios, they are
one hot phone.

At 04 Feb 2008 18:11:24 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
> >> Cingular/AT&T.
> >
> > On what planet?
>
> Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area),
> and Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes,
> and thus with extremely low margins of error.


Following your advice, I did. ;-)

None of the surveys I found references to online addressed coverage
_specifically_ (other than the "Consumer Checkbook" you referenced in a
later post.)

For example, the only Yankee Group survey I could find that put VZW on top
of anything was a four year-old survey of what carrier most business people
used:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1A25757C0A9629
C8B63

(Verizon was tops at 22% over Nextel at 20% and AT&T at 16%...
In 2003...
When ATTWS and Cingular were still separate companies and VZW was the
largest carrier.) Yes, Verizon "won" but it wasn't about network coverage
or quality. Applying the Yankee Group criteria (most consumers) to food
would arguably make McDonald's the "best" restaurant in the US.


J.D. Powers rated Verizon's network with the best "call quality" (not
coverage- they didn't rank that) in 2003 and 2006. The 2003 survey ranked
Nextel in 2nd place. Nextel? I've listened to 70-year old 78-RPM records
cleaned with steel wool that sound clearer than a Nextel phone call. That
strains any credibilty that survey has in my mind! ;-)

J.D. Powers has also ranked Verizon highest in customer satisfaction more
recently, but that doesn't necessarily equate to "best coverage,"
particularly since they were tied with T-Mobile, who has never been accused
of having the best coverage... <cue spooky music> ...UNTIL NOW! (see
below!) ;-)


> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in
> three others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.

Do the CR surveys rank coverage seperately? I haven't seen this January's,
but my recollection of earlier years' surveys was that "coverage" was
included in a soft of "call problems" category which included a variety of
reception problems, like no signal
static, dropped calls, can't hear other party, etc.

While I didn't read t
is year's yet, I found this quote from in it RCR Wireless News: 'T-Mobile's
service was "on par with Verizon in most of the metro areas we
surveyed..."'

T-Mo "on par with Verizon?" Still vouching for CR's survey's "coverage
cred?" ;-)

> Even when Verizon and AT&T turn off their AMPS networks, rural
> carriers have indicated that they will leave their AMPS networks
> in place for the foreseeable future.


Which will be great for whatever fraction of VZW's customers can utilize
it. As Smartphones and Multimedia phones continue to increase in
popularity, the percentage of VZW customers with analog capability dwindles
(unfortunately.)


> I always bring along a phone on Cingular/AT&T when I travel, just to test
> the differences.


You keep an _active_ AT&T phone just to compare it's coverage vs. the
carrier you already use and are already convinced of the superiority of?
That's pretty geeky, and almost as incredible as Nextel ranking second
in call quality in a survey! (Although, admittedly, I used to drive around
with a pre-IRDB Nokia 5120 in field test mode to compare signal strength
of the 800MHz carriers!) ;-)




> Last year, in Oregon, far north California, the Sierra Nevada, and
> Canada, the advantage of CDMA and AMPS was significant. In many cases
> it was roaming onto other CDMA networks, and occasionally AMPS, but
> in most cases it was native coverage. In short, all the surveys
> and tests were confirmed.


My very unscientific anecdotal "tests" confirm Verizon's slight coverage
edge as well- whenever I'm anywhere where my phone doesn't get a signal
(increasingly rare these days), I look around to see who does. Very rarely
do I see a Verizon user staring at his display and cursing lack of signal.
(But it has happened in my experience. In fact, my suburban Denver
neighborhood had no Verizon or AT&T coverage when I moved here four years
ago- I had to loan my realtor my T-Mobile phone to call her office when she
showed us my house the first time. At the time, the only carriers that
worked here were Sprint/Qwest [Qwest is a Sprint MVNO here in Colorado], T-
Mo and Nextel! My neighborhood certainly challenged my long-held belief in
800-MHz superiority!)

Last weekend my only "no signal" observation was with Nextel in Breckenridge.



(Reminding me again how greatly T-Mo has improved over the last four years-
I brought my PagePlus "backup phone" with me but never even tuened it on.
When I first moved to Colorado, I relied on my Beyond Wireless TDMA phones
whenever I left the Denver metro!) A Nextel-wielding couple seemed
surprised they couldn't get a signal at the edge of town. Frankly, any
Nextel users that travel often should only be that surprised when they CAN
get a signal! ;-)

In alt.cellular.attws RBM <rbm@noemail.com> wrote:
>
> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
> I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
> didn't drop with another
>

Talking to empty air is a real bitch. Especially when one person can hear you
and you can't hear them or the reverse happens. A common occurance with GSM
and very rare indeed with CDMA. I have experience with T-Mobile, Sprint and
Verizon post-paid to back this up and AT&T pre-paid ... GSM simply does this a
lot compared to other technologies.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable
>>> consumer resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably
>>> HATE it. -Dave
>>
>>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. ...
>
> I don't even hold a candle to you in that department, Steven.
>

Nice post edit Navas. Why did you cut his text?

He actually wrote:

"As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
newsgroups!)."

You don't like the truth about your spamming? And you certainly didn't like
the fact that I emailed you a legitimate complaint.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.

The way you test coverage is by testing coverage, not by
surveying cell phone end users.

As should be obvious from this thread, the perceptions of end
users vary wildly and certainly can't be relied upon for
something like this.

People tend to either like their service provider or hate it.
If they like it, they will "forget" about service issues
they've experienced when surveyed on the quality of service,
and if they hate it, they will exaggerate them. This is
simple human nature.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
>as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
>newsgroups!).

I've regretted just about every time I trusted CR about
something. It eventually got so bad that I canceled my
subscription because it simply wasn't worth the money.

They recommended a digital camera; I bought it and it was
crap. They recommended a particular toaster and claimed that
it could produce multiple batches of decent toast in quick
succession; I bought it and discovered that not only was the
second batch of toast awful, the first was almost as bad.
They recommended Cambridge Soundworks speakers; I tried them
and discovered they were tinny and weren't anywhere near the
quality of the Kef speakers I ended up buying.

To give them credit, they warned me that the 1995 Ford Taurus
had a bad reliability record before I bought a used one, and
we ended up spending thousands of dollars in repairs that
wouldn't have been necessary on a decent car, and I used
their new-car pricing service to get a good price on a Honda
Odyssey.

In short, I've found that their auto data is pretty good, but
all of their other reviews and ratings are extremely
unreliable.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws RBM <rbm@noemail.com> wrote:
>> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
>> I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
>> didn't drop with another
>>
>
> Talking to empty air is a real bitch. Especially when one person can hear you
> and you can't hear them or the reverse happens. A common occurance with GSM
> and very rare indeed with CDMA. I have experience with T-Mobile, Sprint and
> Verizon post-paid to back this up and AT&T pre-paid ... GSM simply does this a
> lot compared to other technologies.

I've used GSM in other countries, and it's nothing like GSM in the U.S..
The fault does not lie with the technology, it's possible to deploy
GSM in a way that you do not have those problems, it just hasn't been
done yet.

The U.S. presents more deployment problems for GSM than for CDMA because
of the vast open spaces, and suburbs where residents fight towers, which
is a less common problem in western Europe and Asia. A good comparison
is Australia, where they used CDMA to replace GSM in the outback. Then
they wanted to swap CDMA 2000 for another type of CDMA, and it's been
delayed because of deployment and coverage issues.

In my area, SF Bay Area, one reason the 800 MHz CDMA coverage is so much
better than GSM coverage is because of the topography, and the green
belt. A CDMA tower on the edge of the greenbelt provides coverage much
further into the "tower-free" zones. Similarly, a tower's on the edges
of the urban part of suburbs extend coverage further into the suburbs
where zoning doesn't allow towers. This has been an ongoing issue where
I live, where the residents complain about AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile,
then turn around and prevent towers in their back yards.

"Jonathan Kamens" <jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote in message
news:fo9sc3$4i6$2@jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
>>as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
>>newsgroups!).
>
> I've regretted just about every time I trusted CR about
> something. It eventually got so bad that I canceled my
> subscription because it simply wasn't worth the money.
>
> They recommended a digital camera; I bought it and it was
> crap. They recommended a particular toaster and claimed that
> it could produce multiple batches of decent toast in quick
> succession; I bought it and discovered that not only was the
> second batch of toast awful, the first was almost as bad.
> They recommended Cambridge Soundworks speakers; I tried them
> and discovered they were tinny and weren't anywhere near the
> quality of the Kef speakers I ended up buying.

Snip

Yup. Every CR I've read, there is usually a product in there that I own
(and love) and CR hates it. On the other hand, I've been shocked by some CR
recommended items that I know (from experience) are pure crapola.

As I've stated before, CR is a great consumer reference. If CR hates it, I
know I'm probably gonna love it. -Dave

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>> others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
>
> The way you test coverage is by testing coverage, not by
> surveying cell phone end users.

This is true.

Did you see the news story where they accompanied the Verizon testing
van? They tested all major networks for comparison. There was never any
allegation by any other carrier, or by the news media, that the tests
were somehow skewed. The one pseudo-complaint was that the van did not
test in-building coverage, but since most of Verizon is at 800 MHz, the
indoor coverage would have been equal to, or better (comparatively) than
the outdoor results.

No other carrier ever tried to dispute the results. Sprint claims to
have "the most powerful network," and T-Mobile concentrates on having
good customer service and the most peak minutes at a price point, but
neither claims to have the most coverage. Cingular briefly tried to
counter the Verizon campaign with their short-lived "fewest dropped
calls," ad campaign, but dropped it after lawsuits challenged the claim,
and even the company they hired to do the survey disputed Cingular's
advertising claims. Even if the claim had been true, in order to have a
dropped call you first have to be able to place or receive a call! Now
AT&T has switched to the intentionally more vague claim of "More Bars in
More Places."

> As should be obvious from this thread, the perceptions of end
> users vary wildly and certainly can't be relied upon for
> something like this.

They're not a double-blind test, but don't read less into them than they
really mean. Remember, the surveys of users are test of coverage by
default. I.e., the Checkbook survey included surveys of coverage while
traveling and local coverage. There is no reason to believe that one
carrier's customers would claim coverage where none exists or claim no
coverage where it does exist, any more than another carrier's customers
would claim this (Navas excepted). These are huge samples in statistical
terms, and false perceptions would cancel out.

Jonathan Kamens wrote:

> To give them credit, they warned me that the 1995 Ford Taurus
> had a bad reliability record before I bought a used one, and
> we ended up spending thousands of dollars in repairs that
> wouldn't have been necessary on a decent car, and I used
> their new-car pricing service to get a good price on a Honda
> Odyssey.
>
> In short, I've found that their auto data is pretty good, but
> all of their other reviews and ratings are extremely
> unreliable.

Where they often suck is in product reviews, because they lack the
knowledge to make proper evaluations of many specialty products. I've
seen incredibly poor reviews of items like bicycles and digital cameras.
Their vehicle reviews are usually okay, though in my view they over
emphasize the safety and reliability aspects and under emphasize
handling and performance. They also should included data on things like
ease of repairs, i.e. on some GM models you now have to remove the
bumper to change a headlight!

Where they are very useful in their surveys. They have extremely large
sample sizes and hence very low margins of error, and they use sound
statistical methodology. That said, the responders are their subscribers
(of which I am not one), so you're getting responses from a sub-group of
the population that has higher income, higher education, and are more
centrist to liberal in their political beliefs, but if there is any
skewing of the results, it'll skew them equally for all the products or
services surveyed.

I've purchased a car that they had rated as a best buy, then several
years later seen the reliability survey show that it was "much worse
than average." Had they been able to predict the reliability they might
not have recommended it in the first place.