Last year, one of my Cingular Nokia 6340i phones developed a problem. It
worked fine, but would not charge the battery. The problem was in the phone
charging circuit. Fortunately, It was replaced under a phone insurance plan
that was a "freebie" under one of my original service contracts. Seems that
the phone number instead of the phone SN was tied to the service contract.
With the particular phone, the sim card set the phone number.
Anyway, the replacement phone started acting very strangely a month or so
ago. First, it would complain that there was no sim card installed.
(Intermittently, naturally!)
Next, it would not charge the battery. (No error messages, just did not
charge the battery.) Since the warrenty was history, we opened the phone
up. The sim card problem was traced to dirty spring contacts between the sim
card socket and the phone circuit board. Minor disassembly and cleaning with
91% rubbing alcohol cured that problem. Next, inspection of the circuit
board disclosed that the rebuilt phone had very poor workmanship in the
areas that had been "repaired" Cold grainy solder joints were obvious in
several places.) Replaced parts were not centered over solder pads. The flux
residue from circuit board parts replacement soldering was not removed. As
it turned out, the no battery charge problem was nothing more than a a cold
solder joint on a circuit board to connector header. So, I lucked out this
time.
My phones are GAIT phones, not GSM, thus complicating the replacement phone
and parts issues. GAIT phones, at least in theory, will operate in an analog
only area if needed. In practice, it seems that Cingular has managed to at
least partially lock this feature out. In addition, the phones are data
capable, and enabled. Cingular is supporting this feature in a marginal
fashon, making data use difficult and unreliable. We have periodic problems
with Cingular making changes of some kind that wipe out data or internet use
untill I call and complain, then go thru a couple of levels of customer
support. This seems to have happened about four times a year, on all three
phones. (Oddly, not usually at the same time.)
Naturally, Cingulars response is to replace the phones, and sign up for a
new two year contract. Replacing the phones gets into one bag of worms,
since Cingular is GSM only in my area, other than some AT&T and old analog
cell sites. Since Cingular is going to 3G in the future, a replacement phone
should be compatable with my existing data use and 3G as well as GSM.
Unfortunately, a new contract would change some of the existing service
options to a "charge extra" rather than the current included in base rate
status. In addition, the "new" contract would charge based upon data usage
as well as minutes. Currently, only minutes are chargable.
Since I have a newer car with a built in cellphone (Locked to Verizon) I'm
seriously considering forgetting about Cingular and switching.
I'm glad to read about someone who has diagnosed a "repacement" phone and
found out what condition they are in. I have spent on average 3 days back
and forth with Cingular CS refusing used "replacement" phones and demanding
brand new ones. After all, I paid full price for two phones, one
malfunctioned after 4 months and they sent me a broken used replacement,
wtf? AND - told me I had to get a new 2 yr contract! They also tried to rob
me of my 3000 rollover minutes, that was another 30 minute fight over the
phone!
When I lived in FL, we had pretty good reception. Our Verizon cells worked
perfectly during and after the hurricanes. The Cingulars worked before and
partly after the storms. After the hurricanes of '04 & '05, Cingular
reception went south, problems connecting, calls going straight to VM
instead of connecting, funny fast rings when calling, etc. When my phone
failed, I had to borrow my co-workers Verizon cell. Now we live in upper SC
and are experiencing the same problems, but more frequently. This will be my
last year with Cingular.
Want to know why Cingular has the "Least amount of dropped calls?" because
they have the Least amount of connected calls.
Pros of Verizon:
Many companies ex: GM & GE, etc..have corp. employee discount plans with
Verizon.
Verizon ties in with Onstar, Cingular doesnt.
Verizon has some of the better phones, even on the lower plans.
Verizon has better connectivity (from my experience in both FL and SC).
Verizon Customer Service is better (thats not saying much though).
Repair policy is more lax. Bring your phone in to a local store and as long
as you didnt get it wet, you have a new phone, not some crappy repaired
replacement. Cingular discourages in-store replacements, says you have to go
by phone.
Cons of Verizon:
Phones are "neutered", ex: Bluetooth is partially crippled to only work with
Verizon peripherals, Cant connect BT non-Verizon phones and devices in many
cases.
> Replacing the phones gets into one bag of worms,
> since Cingular is GSM only in my area, other than some AT&T and old
analog
> cell sites. Since Cingular is going to 3G in the future, a replacement
phone
> should be compatable with my existing data use and 3G as well as GSM.
The 6340, IIRC, only does CSD data (9.6-14.4k using minutes) which is
"1G." Not GPRS (30-60kbps, or 2G, which is billed by the kb.)
> Unfortunately, a new contract would change some of the existing service
> options to a "charge extra" rather than the current included in base
rate
> status.
Eventually, you'll likely have no choice. You're probably currently on a
GAIT plan, which Cingular will likely discontinue when the officially
terminate TDMA and analog service next February, forcing you on a new
plan anyway.
> In addition, the "new" contract would charge based upon data usage
> as well as minutes. Currently, only minutes are chargable.
I doubt that. I suspect your plan uses minutes for data. (So free
nights and weekends, etc. are free for data as well, etc.) I a sume you
are charged nothing OTHER than minutes for data use. (My old Cingular
TDMA plan was like that- the "usual" $3.99/month data fee was waived.)
Cingular MIGHT be able to move that feature ("Included CSD") to a new
account, but don't think that means you'll get "unlimited" 2G or 3G data-
it just means your future 3G phone will still be able to dial out at 9.6k
using minutes, just as your broadband-connected desktop PC can still use
it's trusty 56k modem if you tell it to.
> Since I have a newer car with a built in cellphone (Locked to Verizon)
I'm
> seriously considering forgetting about Cingular and switching.
>
> Any pros and cons concerning Verizon service?
I've never used Verizon so I can't really give you advice there except to
say I'm from the camp that believes you pick the service provider that
meets your needs first, then choose compatible equipment. Already having
a Verizon cellphone in my posession wouldn't influence ME in choosing
Verizon, anymore than already having a spare Ford key in my pocket would
lead me to buy a Ford automobile!
At 12 Mar 2007 08:26:43 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> My experience, too--but things will change DRASTICALLY when Verizon
cuts
> off their analog service next year. That's a very important factoid to
> know.
Why do you think that? I assume that Verizon will have completed their
CDMA overlay long before then. A quick perusal of Verizon's online maps
report very little Verizon-native AMPS-only coverage. Verizon's decision
(if true) of eliminating their own AMPS network will not affect your
ability to roam on the AMPS networks of other (rural) providers if your
plan allows for that.
All Verizon seems to have committed to so far is to shut-off AMPS-only
PHONES on their service when the February 2008 AMPS sunset date arrives.
It's not a matter of being free to pick. Instead, it's a matter of cost.
Verizon service (stuck with) service for the car is not changable to another
carrier.
I can combine it with "normal cell phones" at a group rate.
So far, CSR's for either Verizon, On Star, or for that matter, Cingular are
not really knowledgeable about the overall situation.
>I've never used Verizon so I can't really give you advice there except to
> say I'm from the camp that believes you pick the service provider that
> meets your needs first, then choose compatible equipment.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:et3r40$qq9$1@aioe.org...
> At 11 Mar 2007 23:15:31 -0400 Chuck wrote:
>
> > Replacing the phones gets into one bag of worms,
> > since Cingular is GSM only in my area, other than some AT&T and old
> analog
> > cell sites. Since Cingular is going to 3G in the future, a replacement
> phone
> > should be compatable with my existing data use and 3G as well as GSM.
>
> The 6340, IIRC, only does CSD data (9.6-14.4k using minutes) which is
> "1G." Not GPRS (30-60kbps, or 2G, which is billed by the kb.)
>
>
> > Unfortunately, a new contract would change some of the existing service
> > options to a "charge extra" rather than the current included in base
> rate
> > status.
>
> Eventually, you'll likely have no choice. You're probably currently on a
> GAIT plan, which Cingular will likely discontinue when the officially
> terminate TDMA and analog service next February, forcing you on a new
> plan anyway.
>
> > In addition, the "new" contract would charge based upon data usage
> > as well as minutes. Currently, only minutes are chargable.
>
>
> I doubt that. I suspect your plan uses minutes for data. (So free
> nights and weekends, etc. are free for data as well, etc.) I a sume you
> are charged nothing OTHER than minutes for data use. (My old Cingular
> TDMA plan was like that- the "usual" $3.99/month data fee was waived.)
>
> Cingular MIGHT be able to move that feature ("Included CSD") to a new
> account, but don't think that means you'll get "unlimited" 2G or 3G data-
> it just means your future 3G phone will still be able to dial out at 9.6k
> using minutes, just as your broadband-connected desktop PC can still use
> it's trusty 56k modem if you tell it to.
>
>
> > Since I have a newer car with a built in cellphone (Locked to Verizon)
> I'm
> > seriously considering forgetting about Cingular and switching.
> >
> > Any pros and cons concerning Verizon service?
>
> I've never used Verizon so I can't really give you advice there except to
> say I'm from the camp that believes you pick the service provider that
> meets your needs first, then choose compatible equipment. Already having
> a Verizon cellphone in my posession wouldn't influence ME in choosing
> Verizon, anymore than already having a spare Ford key in my pocket would
> lead me to buy a Ford automobile!
>
>
> Since I have a newer car with a built in cellphone (Locked to Verizon) I'm
> seriously considering forgetting about Cingular and switching.
>
> Any pros and cons concerning Verizon service?
The big pro is that you can still get a handset with AMPS service on
Verizon. As you realize, continuing with GAIT on Cingular is not going
to be viable.
Having AMPS can be a big advantage if you travel outside the urban
areas. Even though probably every Verizon AMPS tower also has CDMA, the
AMPS has greater range so the coverage is better than with CDMA-only. In
rural areas, having AMPS capability is the difference between service
and no service.
Some people are confused regarding the Verizon coverage maps, which will
not show AMPS if the area is also covered by digital. What the maps
don't show is that the concurrent AMPS coverage reaches a wider area
than the CDMA coverage. It can make a huge difference in coverage. As
pointed out earlier, the AMPS coverage in rural areas is often all
that's available, i.e. on one of the routes I take up to Lake Tahoe,
there is no GSM service for much of the way, but you can usually pick up
an AMPS signal from the rural carrier.
In all areas of the country Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
service in the most extensive independent surveys. In some areas the
difference was small, in some it was very large. In the area I live in,
the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon is far superior to Cingular in terms
of coverage according to every independent survey. Besides having less
dropped calls and better coverage, it has a another advantage that feeds
on itself, in that a large majority of people in the area have Verizon,
which results in less need for peak minutes as most calls are mobile to
mobile.
As to the cons, I guess if you travel to GSM-only countries it means
that you won't be able to have Cingular coverage with your GSM phone,
you'd need to take a GSM quad-band phone and buy prepaid SIM cards.
DTC wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> In all areas of the country Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
>> service in the most extensive independent surveys.
>
> Excluding the Navas extensive survey.
That survey was not independent, and since it had a sample size of one,
the margin of error is very large.
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:09:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4602c655$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Having AMPS can be a big advantage if you travel outside the urban
>areas. Even though probably every Verizon AMPS tower also has CDMA, the
>AMPS has greater range so the coverage is better than with CDMA-only. ...
Not true.
>Some people are confused regarding the Verizon coverage maps,
They only confusion is your attempt to obfuscate.
>which will
>not show AMPS if the area is also covered by digital. What the maps
>don't show is that the concurrent AMPS coverage reaches a wider area
>than the CDMA coverage.
They don't show that because it isn't true.
>It can make a huge difference in coverage.
Actually not.
>In all areas of the country Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
>service in the most extensive independent surveys. In some areas the
>difference was small, in some it was very large. In the area I live in,
>the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon is far superior to Cingular in terms
>of coverage according to every independent survey. Besides having less
>dropped calls and better coverage, it has a another advantage that feeds
>on itself, in that a large majority of people in the area have Verizon,
>which results in less need for peak minutes as most calls are mobile to
>mobile.
Again, not true. Cingular has arguably the best digital coverage of any
carrier.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:09:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> In all areas of the country Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
>> service in the most extensive independent surveys.
>
> Again, not true. Cingular has arguably the best digital coverage of any
> carrier.
DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:09:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> In all areas of the country Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
>>> service in the most extensive independent surveys.
>>
>> Again, not true. Cingular has arguably the best digital coverage of any
>> carrier.
>
> What survey(s) are you referring to?
I think he's talking about the Navas survey. That survey was not
independent, and since it had a sample size of one, the margin of error
is very large.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:31:10 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4603d6ab$0$27199$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
>and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>Wireless Service.]
Please stop polluting alt.cellular.attws by cross-posting these
incomplete thread fragments.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:37:58 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <GlMMh.14237$PL.9929@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:09:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> In all areas of the country Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
>>> service in the most extensive independent surveys.
>>
>> Again, not true. Cingular has arguably the best digital coverage of any
>> carrier.
>
>What survey(s) are you referring to?
Actual coverage.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
In article <GlMMh.14237$PL.9929@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:09:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> >> In all areas of the country Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
> >> service in the most extensive independent surveys.
> >
> > Again, not true. Cingular has arguably the best digital coverage of any
> > carrier.
>
> What survey(s) are you referring to?
In article <4603d6ab$0$27199$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> DTC wrote:
> > John Navas wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:09:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> >>> In all areas of the country Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
> >>> service in the most extensive independent surveys.
> >>
> >> Again, not true. Cingular has arguably the best digital coverage of any
> >> carrier.
> >
> > What survey(s) are you referring to?
>
> I think he's talking about the Navas survey. That survey was not
> independent, and since it had a sample size of one, the margin of error
> is very large.
>
I think it only covers his commute in Oakland.
SMS wrote:
> In *all areas of the country* Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
> service in the most extensive independent surveys.
John Navas wrote:
> My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
> multiple handsets throughout the *greater San Francisco Bay Area*.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:39:56 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <gxSMh.15570$tD2.10714@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net>:
>SMS wrote:
> > In *all areas of the country* Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
> > service in the most extensive independent surveys.
>
>John Navas wrote:
>> My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
>> multiple handsets throughout the *greater San Francisco Bay Area*.
>
>Apples to oranges
Indeed, because the relevant context is the part by Kurt that you
snipped, not Steven's usual rant.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:39:56 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <gxSMh.15570$tD2.10714@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net>:
>SMS wrote:
> > In *all areas of the country* Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
> > service in the most extensive independent surveys.
>
>John Navas wrote:
>> My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
>> multiple handsets throughout the *greater San Francisco Bay Area*.
>
>Apples to oranges
p.s. There are no "surveys" of _geographic coverage_ -- surveys rate
_subjective quality_ of service, not the amount of geographic coverage.
Is that what you meant by "apples to oranges"?
To compare geographic coverage, assuming you don't have access to
proprietary/non-public test data, you have to rely on comparisons of
published coverage maps, which is relatively crude. To its credit,
Cingular provides much better coverage map data than Verizon.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
DTC wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> > In *all areas of the country* Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
> > service in the most extensive independent surveys.
>
> John Navas wrote:
>> My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
>> multiple handsets throughout the *greater San Francisco Bay Area*.
>
> Apples to oranges
Worse than apples to oranges.
We're comparing independent surveys with tens of thousands of
respondents and an extremely low margin of error, with the alleged
experiences of a single user, a user that has a long history of
fabricating stories. He is absolutely insanely angry that no independent
surveys support his shilling.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:18:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4603fdf3$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>DTC wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>> > In *all areas of the country* Verizon coverage was better than Cingular
>> > service in the most extensive independent surveys.
>>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
>>> multiple handsets throughout the *greater San Francisco Bay Area*.
>>
>> Apples to oranges
>
>Worse than apples to oranges.
>
>We're comparing independent surveys with tens of thousands of
>respondents and an extremely low margin of error,
Hard to tell what you have in mind with that kind of vague hand waving
(as usual), but presumably you are again mischaracterizing the Consumers
Union survey, which (as I've explained several times) suffers from
serious flaws:
* Non-representative population
* Self-selected sample
* Small sample size when broken down by region
* Improper methods (e.g., lumping together D-AMPS and GSM,
ENS and non-ENS, iDEN and CDMA2000)
* Poor methodology
The tarnished credibility of Consumers Union is also apparent from the
child seat and other recent debacles:
<http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/AUTO01/701190403/1148>
>with the alleged
>experiences of a single user, a user that has a long history of
>fabricating stories.
In stooping to ad hominem (as usual), you show your own position to be
weak, and effectively concede the argument
>He is absolutely insanely angry that no independent
>surveys support his shilling.
In fact I've pointed to JDPowers as the best available data, which shows
relatively small differences between carriers, on the order of the
sampling error.
>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
>and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>Wireless Service.]
Please stop polluting alt.cellular.attws with incomplete cross-posting
of alt.cellular.cingular threads -- what you are doing is childish and
rude.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:54:55 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:31:10 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote in <4603d6ab$0$27199$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>>posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
>>and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>>Wireless Service.]
>
>Please stop polluting alt.cellular.attws by cross-posting these
>incomplete thread fragments.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:27:14 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:01:56 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
>in <labolide-093C25.08015623032007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>>I think it only covers his commute in Oakland.
>
>1. I don't commute, through Oakland or anywhere else.
>
>2. My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
>multiple handsets throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area.
So any generalization for the whole country is worthless then.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:43:19 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>In fact I've pointed to JDPowers as the best available data, which shows
>relatively small differences between carriers, on the order of the
>sampling error.
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:27:14 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:01:56 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> >in <labolide-093C25.08015623032007@news.giganews.com>:
> >
> >>I think it only covers his commute in Oakland.
> >
> >1. I don't commute, through Oakland or anywhere else.
> >
> >2. My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
> >multiple handsets throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area.
>
>
> So any generalization for the whole country is worthless then.
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:mbs703dhu4djpifoepou650021jod1m1pd@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:01:56 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-093C25.08015623032007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>>I think it only covers his commute in Oakland.
>
> 1. I don't commute, through Oakland or anywhere else.
>
> 2. My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
> multiple handsets throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area.
>
And exactly what "controls" were in place? What calibration instrumentaion
was used to baseline each unit? What was the timeframe of the testing?
How were atmospheric changes addressed and compensated for?
Unless you can answer all of those questions (and more) with answers that
follow the generall aceepted practices of testing cellular coverage, youyr
little experiment belongs in an elementary school science fair- about third
grade would be appropriate.
In article <JaCdnf-q-e6IA5DbnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:mbs703dhu4djpifoepou650021jod1m1pd@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:01:56 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> > in <labolide-093C25.08015623032007@news.giganews.com>:
> >
> >>I think it only covers his commute in Oakland.
> >
> > 1. I don't commute, through Oakland or anywhere else.
> >
> > 2. My observations are based on numerous carefully-controlled tests of
> > multiple handsets throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area.
> >
>
> And exactly what "controls" were in place? What calibration instrumentaion
> was used to baseline each unit? What was the timeframe of the testing?
> How were atmospheric changes addressed and compensated for?
>
> Unless you can answer all of those questions (and more) with answers that
> follow the generall aceepted practices of testing cellular coverage, youyr
> little experiment belongs in an elementary school science fair- about third
> grade would be appropriate.
Let me answer this one for him . The calibration instrument is V3xx.
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:43:19 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In fact I've pointed to JDPowers as the best available data, which shows
>> relatively small differences between carriers, on the order of the
>> sampling error.
>
>
> Not nationally. Only in certain markets.
The advantage of the Consumer's Union data is two-fold. First, they used
a much larger sample size, hence the margin of error is lower. Second,
they broke down the data into much smaller geographic units than J.D.
Power. With J.D. Power, they ranked Qwest and Verizon significantly
better than the other carriers in the West region, but the West region
is huge, literally half the area of the lower 48, with many variations
within the region.
Even though the Consumer's Union survey only targeted Consumer's Reports
subscribers, any differences between subscribers and the population at
large cancelled out, since subscribers were only rating their own
carrier's quality.
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:11:06 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<u4hq035r9pl0b861b1jkoq8fkknnlmoa74@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:43:19 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In fact I've pointed to JDPowers as the best available data, which shows
>>relatively small differences between carriers, on the order of the
>>sampling error.
>
>Not nationally. Only in certain markets.
Actually the entire data set, as the accompanying comments make clear.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:17:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <460dd2b7$0$27237$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:43:19 GMT, John Navas
>> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact I've pointed to JDPowers as the best available data, which shows
>>> relatively small differences between carriers, on the order of the
>>> sampling error.
>>
>> Not nationally. Only in certain markets.
>
>The advantage of the Consumer's Union data is two-fold. First, they used
>a much larger sample size, hence the margin of error is lower. Second,
>they broke down the data into much smaller geographic units than J.D.
>Power. With J.D. Power, they ranked Qwest and Verizon significantly
>better than the other carriers in the West region, but the West region
>is huge, literally half the area of the lower 48, with many variations
>within the region.
>
>Even though the Consumer's Union survey only targeted Consumer's Reports
>subscribers, any differences between subscribers and the population at
>large cancelled out, since subscribers were only rating their own
>carrier's quality.
Nope. Statistics don't work that way. CU surveys (as I've explained
several times) suffer from serious flaws:
* Non-representative population
* Self-selected sample
* Small sample size when broken down by region
* Improper methods (e.g., lumping together D-AMPS and GSM,
ENS and non-ENS, iDEN and CDMA2000)
* Poor methodology
The tarnished credibility of Consumers Union is also apparent from the
child seat and other recent debacles:
<http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/AUTO01/701190403/1148>
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Replacement Phone Quality HAH! 
Linear Mode
