Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:31:32 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
> <ktr6a4-sd7.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>>One of the nice things about working the Hispanofest in Melrose Park IL
>>was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
>>just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
>>and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
>>people who frequent places that make good coffee.
>
> In your opinion. Opinions vary. And your insults only serve to
> diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.

I didn't think that was much of an insult, if one at all. I would if I
believed you could have tried this little coffee shop's product, but
that's unlikely.

In any event, it's no more insulting than your remark about how "some
undiscriminating people" think the coffee is burnt.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:02:57 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-9A8192.13025712022007@news.giganews.com>:

>In article <jbe1t213nei1djl4ns6ghv065livbs32ge@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:15:34 -0500, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>> <Xns98D586E7F8185noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>>
>> >"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1.73@newsfe12.lga:
>> >
>> >> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
>> >> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
>> >> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>> >
>> >A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
>> >Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
>> >in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
>> >http://www.chefmavro.com/
>> >Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
>> >Wakiki Beach....(c;
>>
>> Lion is decent, but far from the best Kona coffee -- next time try Sugai
>> <http://www.sugaikonacoffee.com/>.
>>
>> That said, Kona is a bit wimpy for my taste -- I'd much rather have a
>> good aged Sumatra, or organic East Timor, particularly as roasted by my
>> favorite coffee place, Pacific Bay Coffee in Walnut Creek, a genuine
>> micro-roastery. <http://www.pacificbaycoffee.com/> It's far superior
>> to Peet's or Starbucks, not to mention (yuk!) Mickey D, DD, or 7-11.
>
>Mickey D got a higher score than Starbucks for their coffee
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16951509/

A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.

Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
LOL!

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

John Navas wrote:

<snip>

> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>
> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
> LOL!

And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
his opinion(s) above all others.

--
Notan

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:33:33 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
wrote in <2tGdnScjYN-xQE3YnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@giganews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>
>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>> LOL!
>
>And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>his opinion(s) above all others.

And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:33:33 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote in <2tGdnScjYN-xQE3YnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>>
>>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>>> LOL!
>> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>> his opinion(s) above all others.
>
> And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
> who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.

It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?

--
Notan

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:03:50 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
wrote in <Y_6dnRKaw6fbeU3YnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:33:33 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
>> wrote in <2tGdnScjYN-xQE3YnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>>>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>>>
>>>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>>>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>>>> LOL!
>>> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>>> his opinion(s) above all others.
>>
>> And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
>> who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.
>
>It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?

You tell me.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:03:50 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote in <Y_6dnRKaw6fbeU3YnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:33:33 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
>>> wrote in <2tGdnScjYN-xQE3YnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>>>>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>>>>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>>>>> LOL!
>>>> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>>>> his opinion(s) above all others.
>>> And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
>>> who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.
>> It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?
>
> You tell me.

If answering a question with a question is your idea of mature, I guess
you win.

Goodnight, John.

--
Notan

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:35:24 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
wrote in <gbqdnYegf7Iydk3YnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@giganews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:03:50 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
>> wrote in <Y_6dnRKaw6fbeU3YnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:33:33 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
>>>> wrote in <2tGdnScjYN-xQE3YnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>>>>>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>>>>>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>>>>> his opinion(s) above all others.
>>>> And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
>>>> who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.
>>> It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?
>>
>> You tell me.
>
>If answering a question with a question is your idea of mature, I guess
>you win.

No, you win -- it's clearly so important to you.

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

In article <kkm1t2141vjue23lgppf0u4te97bbv6dup@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:02:57 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-9A8192.13025712022007@news.giganews.com>:
>
> >In article <jbe1t213nei1djl4ns6ghv065livbs32ge@4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:15:34 -0500, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
> >> <Xns98D586E7F8185noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
> >>
> >> >"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1.73@newsfe12.lga:
> >> >
> >> >> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
> >> >> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
> >> >> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
> >> >
> >> >A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
> >> >Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com.
> >> >I'm
> >> >in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
> >> >http://www.chefmavro.com/
> >> >Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
> >> >Wakiki Beach....(c;
> >>
> >> Lion is decent, but far from the best Kona coffee -- next time try Sugai
> >> <http://www.sugaikonacoffee.com/>.
> >>
> >> That said, Kona is a bit wimpy for my taste -- I'd much rather have a
> >> good aged Sumatra, or organic East Timor, particularly as roasted by my
> >> favorite coffee place, Pacific Bay Coffee in Walnut Creek, a genuine
> >> micro-roastery. <http://www.pacificbaycoffee.com/> It's far superior
> >> to Peet's or Starbucks, not to mention (yuk!) Mickey D, DD, or 7-11.
> >
> >Mickey D got a higher score than Starbucks for their coffee
> >
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16951509/
>
> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>
> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
> LOL!

Starbucks is still not great coffee. Worse are their often stale
pastries.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message

>>>> It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?
>>>
>>> You tell me.
>>
>>If answering a question with a question is your idea of mature, I guess
>>you win.
>
> No, you win -- it's clearly so important to you.
>

I know it's close to Valentine's, so why don't you two kiss and make up.
You're flirting is making me sick!

Notan wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>
>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>> LOL!
>
> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
> his opinion(s) above all others.

Actually for Starbucks, where all the U.S. stores are company owned and
operated, two stores should be sufficient because there isn't a lot of
variability. For McDonald's, where there a lot of franchises, as well as
a lot of company owned stores, you'd expect more variability on some
menu items.

The burnt taste that they complained about is not some huge secret, it's
how Starbucks roasts and brews their regular coffee.




[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.]

At 12 Feb 2007 16:00:32 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> No matter how many times you make this claim, it still isn't true. CR
> surveys suffer from self-selected samples of a non-representative
> population, making the data interesting, but not truly applicable to the
> universe of cellular subscribers.

How does the "non-representative" group skew the results when the
respondents' class (CR subscribers) has nothing to do with the product
reviewed (cellphones) and are aswering objective questions (i.e. saying
one had a dropped call isn't an "opinion") at least in a real-world
scenario?

For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.

But asking "cable TV subscribers," "Ford automobile owners," or
"bricklayers" objective questions about cellular service should tend to
get the same results if the sample sizes are large enough. (Unless, for
example, cell companies discriminate against bricklayers...)

> In addition, the sample size is
> actually small when broken down by area, further increasing the amount
> of error.

Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
things out. ;-)

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:23:40 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d0f6ff$0$27160$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Notan wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>>
>>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>>> LOL!
>>
>> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>> his opinion(s) above all others.
>
>Actually for Starbucks, where all the U.S. stores are company owned and
>operated, two stores should be sufficient because there isn't a lot of
>variability.

Starbucks actually has quite a bit of variability between stores because
it's not a tightly controlled operation and has distinct submarkets
within its operation (e.g., Starbucks in Safeway stores versus
storefronts).

>For McDonald's, where there a lot of franchises, as well as
>a lot of company owned stores, you'd expect more variability on some
>menu items.

Mickey D's is actually well known for tight control of the delivered
product.

In other words, you have that backwards.

>The burnt taste that they complained about is not some huge secret, it's
>how Starbucks roasts and brews their regular coffee.

The brew has nothing at all to do with it. It's strictly a matter of
roasting, which is controlled by the parent company, but varies
considerably between the different coffees it sells.

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

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:07:35 -0600, "Jeff" <nada@nowhere.com> wrote in
<Xq6Ah.6213$4H1.3656@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net> :

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>
>>>>> It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> You tell me.
>>>
>>>If answering a question with a question is your idea of mature, I guess
>>>you win.
>>
>> No, you win -- it's clearly so important to you.
>
>I know it's close to Valentine's, so why don't you two kiss and make up.
>You're flirting is making me sick!

After you.

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

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:04:19 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <eqqvcn$1ei$1@aioe.org>:

>At 12 Feb 2007 16:00:32 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> No matter how many times you make this claim, it still isn't true. CR
>> surveys suffer from self-selected samples of a non-representative
>> population, making the data interesting, but not truly applicable to the
>> universe of cellular subscribers.
>
>How does the "non-representative" group skew the results when the
>respondents' class (CR subscribers) has nothing to do with the product
>reviewed (cellphones) and are aswering objective questions (i.e. saying
>one had a dropped call isn't an "opinion") at least in a real-world
>scenario?

Statistics 101: because it's non-representative of the universe. To
conduct meaningful sampling, you must take a _random_ sample of the
universe. CR fails on two counts:
1. CR subscribers are not drawn randomly from the universe, and have not
been shown representative of any universe other than CR subscribers.
2. Survey respondents are self-selected, and thus inevitably have an
unknown bias that's not accounted for in survey results.

>For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
>TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
>magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.
>
>But asking "cable TV subscribers," "Ford automobile owners," or
>"bricklayers" objective questions about cellular service should tend to
>get the same results if the sample sizes are large enough. (Unless, for
>example, cell companies discriminate against bricklayers...)

You're making assumptions, and "assumptions are the mother of all
screwups". (c) Jeff Liebermann

To truly understand the issue, you need to study up on sampling.

>> In addition, the sample size is
>> actually small when broken down by area, further increasing the amount
>> of error.
>
>Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
>things out. ;-)

That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.

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

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:5kh1t2d0jh5t78i47627dsgrhkthnlbl15@4ax.com:


>
> I consider myself a discriminating person;


And based on the many opinions you have posted over the years, you would be
alone in that view.

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:31:47 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <no2Ah.783$x74.655@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
>> Like Extended GSM, huh?
>
> Not at all -- Extended Range GSM is real.

I'll rephrase that...

Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:26:28 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <UA7Ah.875$tD2.713@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:31:47 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>> wrote in <no2Ah.783$x74.655@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
>>> Like Extended GSM, huh?
>>
>> Not at all -- Extended Range GSM is real.
>
>I'll rephrase that...
>
>Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?

Nope. Just my own experience.

Any citations to the contrary?

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

Todd Allcock wrote:

> For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
> TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
> magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.

I guess that John is trying to convince people that if somehow you could
get a sample size of 50,000 respondents, and it was all random, that the
results would be different. Of course this is ridiculous, the sample of
CR subscribers that are Verizon subscribers, are not going to be biased
for or against Verizon, any more than the Sprint, Cingular or T-Mobile
subscribers are going to be biased against their own carriers. I think
what he doesn't understand, is that the survey isn't asking 50,000
people "which carrier is best in your city?," it's asking for an
evaluation of your own carrier.

Now if you surveyed only long distance truck drivers, and trucking
firms, of course Verizon is going to have a huge advantage, because they
have much wider coverage than Cingular in non-urban areas due to AMPS.
The commercial carriers still use AMPS in areas where there is no CDMA
coverage (see "http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=51944").

> But asking "cable TV subscribers," "Ford automobile owners," or
> "bricklayers" objective questions about cellular service should tend to
> get the same results if the sample sizes are large enough. (Unless, for
> example, cell companies discriminate against bricklayers...)

Yes, that's the whole point.

Of course Navas is just extremely upset that for yet another year,
Cingular fared extremely poorly in the Consumer Reports survey AND the
J.D. Power surveys. That's why he feels compelled to make up ridiculous
stories to try and defend them, part of which is trying to attack the
companies doing the surveys.

> Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
> things out. ;-)

The margin of error is still extremely small, even when broken down by
region and then by carrier. Additionally, in some regions, such as the
San Francisco Bay Area, there is such a large difference, that even with
the maximum amount of error applied, Cingular still does extremely
poorly, and Verizon does extremely well.


[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.]

Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:5kh1t2d0jh5t78i47627dsgrhkthnlbl15@4ax.com:
>
>
>> I consider myself a discriminating person;
>
>
> And based on the many opinions you have posted over the years, you would be
> alone in that view.

He discriminates against the truth and the facts on a daily basis.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:52:16 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d10bc3$0$27176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
>> TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
>> magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.
>
>I guess that John is trying to convince people that if somehow you could
>get a sample size of 50,000 respondents, and it was all random, that the
>results would be different.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- I'm just stating the
science of statistics -- makes no difference how many samples you take
when the sampling isn't random, as in the case of CR, where is the
population isn't representative, and the sample is self-selected, two
serious flaws.

>Of course this is ridiculous, the sample of
>CR subscribers that are Verizon subscribers, are not going to be biased
>for or against Verizon, any more than the Sprint, Cingular or T-Mobile
>subscribers are going to be biased against their own carriers. I think
>what he doesn't understand, is that the survey isn't asking 50,000
>people "which carrier is best in your city?," it's asking for an
>evaluation of your own carrier.

You clearly don't understand the concept of sample bias, which has
nothing to do with your kind of bias.

>Now if you surveyed only long distance truck drivers, and trucking
>firms, of course Verizon is going to have a huge advantage, because they
>have much wider coverage than Cingular in non-urban areas due to AMPS.
>The commercial carriers still use AMPS in areas where there is no CDMA
>coverage (see "http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=51944").

Again, that's irrelevant, because that's not how sampling works.

>Of course Navas is just extremely upset that for yet another year,
>Cingular fared extremely poorly in the Consumer Reports survey AND the
>J.D. Power surveys. That's why he feels compelled to make up ridiculous
>stories to try and defend them, part of which is trying to attack the
>companies doing the surveys.

Nothing of the sort. I have no agenda -- I'm simply sick of your
agenda. In fact the differences in the better surveys (e.g., J.D.
Powers) are actually small, probably within the level of sampling error.

>> Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
>> things out. ;-)
>
>The margin of error is still extremely small, even when broken down by
>region and then by carrier.

There'a actually no way to know the actual margin of error, given the
way the survey was taken, and the small sample size when broken down by
area makes it even worse.

>Additionally, in some regions, such as the
>San Francisco Bay Area, there is such a large difference, that even with
>the maximum amount of error applied, Cingular still does extremely
>poorly, and Verizon does extremely well.

Again, the differences in the better surveys are actually small,
probably within the level of sampling error.

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

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:53:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d10bef$0$27176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:5kh1t2d0jh5t78i47627dsgrhkthnlbl15@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I consider myself a discriminating person;
>>
>> And based on the many opinions you have posted over the years, you would be
>> alone in that view.
>
>He discriminates against the truth and the facts on a daily basis.

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

--
Best regards,
John Navas

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

At 13 Feb 2007 00:21:41 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Statistics 101: because it's non-representative of the universe. To
> conduct meaningful sampling, you must take a _random_ sample of the
> universe.

Right. In theory. Which is why I followed it with "real-world."

> CR fails on two counts:
> 1. CR subscribers are not drawn randomly from the universe, and have not
> been shown representative of any universe other than CR subscribers.
> 2. Survey respondents are self-selected, and thus inevitably have an
> unknown bias that's not accounted for in survey results.
A bias that would most likely be even distributed among all carriers- for
example, if self-selection is, say, 20% more likely to generate replies
from people unhappy with their service, then all carriers will be skewed
negatively by presumably the same amount.


> You're making assumptions, and "assumptions are the mother of all
> screwups". (c) Jeff Liebermann
>
> To truly understand the issue, you need to study up on sampling.

I'm familiar with the theory, and often a true representative sample is
diffrent to obtain in the real world. For example, drug/medical testing
must be peformed on wiling participants- inherently a "non-
representative" sample, but one that doesn't necessarily skew results,
because the internal biological chemistry of humans isn't demonstrably
different between those willing and those unwilling.


> >Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure
work
> >things out. ;-)
>
> That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.

Given the lack of a completely "blind" random survey, the CR one holds up
pretty well. In the real world, the ideal sample population is difficult
to find, so you do the best you can with as unbiased a sampling as you can.


Put another way, other than Cingular's "secret" least-dropped-calls
study, has any consumer group or independent research firm (i.e. J.D.
Powers) ever rated Cingular with the best network?

My experience over the last few years tends to support the CR study-
whenever, in my travels, I find myself in an area where some people can't
get service and some can, the ones who can have more often than not been
Verizon users. (Because I always ask, out of curiosity.)

Certainly that's not scientific, and certainly is not a "representative
sample" but it is generally the case in my experience.

Having said that, I still wouldn't use Verizon's service- between the
crippled phones, and high prices, I'm just not interested, but that
doesn't mean they haven't got the network right.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:eb22t257gcjcpsk9gcl10hl2grfh243btj@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:26:28 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <UA7Ah.875$tD2.713@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:31:47 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>>> wrote in <no2Ah.783$x74.655@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
>>>> Like Extended GSM, huh?
>>>
>>> Not at all -- Extended Range GSM is real.
>>
>>I'll rephrase that...
>>
>>Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?
>
> Nope. Just my own experience.

So, all you have is biased, anecdotal fairy tales to back up your claim.
Sorry- not enough.



>
> Any citations to the contrary?


Of course there are- companies are always eager to talk about technology
they are not using.

You really must be that stupid.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:6v42t211guulk1t8hbgdrrem7ul4adubkv@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:53:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45d10bef$0$27176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> news:5kh1t2d0jh5t78i47627dsgrhkthnlbl15@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> I consider myself a discriminating person;
>>>
>>> And based on the many opinions you have posted over the years, you
>>> would be alone in that view.
>>
>>He discriminates against the truth and the facts on a daily basis.
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>

And those that don't have a clue use Google as their bible and post under
the name John Navas.

In article <gp02t2tgdjbk6bh3a2llp06c2v92a7uv8l@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
[...]
> That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.

i hope this doesn't wound you too deeply john, but i suspect that
most sane readers would accept consumer reports statistics over your
biased commentary.

If you're interested in Kona coffee and other goodies from Hawaii you can go
to my web page and click on the Hilo Hattie link. Or just follow this link:

http://www.hilohattie.com/category-index.cfm?catid=20

I order coffee and macadamia nuts as gifts for the family. Good delivery
times and reasonable prices.

--
Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary at
www.under-1-roof.com

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D586E7F8185noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1.73@newsfe12.lga:
>
>> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
>> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
>> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>>
>>
>
> A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
> Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
> in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
> http://www.chefmavro.com/
> Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
> Wakiki Beach....(c;
>
> My friend in Atlanta calls Starbucks Fivebucks. We both agree it sucks.
>
> Larry
> --
> VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
> NOONE will be spared!

At 13 Feb 2007 01:27:49 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'


True enough, but sometimes those requiring evidence are forced to attack
the man who refuses to provide evidence... ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:

> A bias that would most likely be even distributed among all carriers- for
> example, if self-selection is, say, 20% more likely to generate replies
> from people unhappy with their service, then all carriers will be skewed
> negatively by presumably the same amount.

That's really the key point. It's not as if the CR subscribers are
somehow biased towards one carrier or another. It's not like surveying a
group of long-distance truck drivers that would necessarily have
coverage requirements that are different from the average person.

> Given the lack of a completely "blind" random survey, the CR one holds up
> pretty well. In the real world, the ideal sample population is difficult
> to find, so you do the best you can with as unbiased a sampling as you can.

It's funny to see people latch onto the lack of a double-blind random
survey every time a survey presents results that they disagree with,
while at the same time not being able to present and reasons why the
survey is not credible. Yet in most cases it's not possible to conduct
such a survey. The CR survey was very well designed, since any bias
cancels out since it would be equal among all carriers. Combine that
with the huge sample size, even larger than the J.D. Power surveys, and
you have results that everyone agrees are the best you can hope for.

> Put another way, other than Cingular's "secret" least-dropped-calls
> study, has any consumer group or independent research firm (i.e. J.D.
> Powers) ever rated Cingular with the best network?

Not only that, but Cingular has steadfastly refused to release the
specifics of that study, which is highly suspect. Sprint is still suing
them, AFAIK, and Cingular countersued claiming that Sprint doesn't have
"the most powerful network" whatever that means.

> My experience over the last few years tends to support the CR study-
> whenever, in my travels, I find myself in an area where some people can't
> get service and some can, the ones who can have more often than not been
> Verizon users. (Because I always ask, out of curiosity.)

Yeah, in my area (SF Bay Area) it's almost always the Verizon users that
have coverage when no one else does. My daughter is constantly letting
her friends and teammates use her phone when their Sprint, T-Mobile, and
Cingular phones don't work. I do have to say that Cingular is improving
quite a bit out here, and I notice a difference over the past year in
terms of improved coverage.

> Certainly that's not scientific, and certainly is not a "representative
> sample" but it is generally the case in my experience.
>
> Having said that, I still wouldn't use Verizon's service- between the
> crippled phones, and high prices, I'm just not interested, but that
> doesn't mean they haven't got the network right.

The crippled phones are an annoyance, though they are often hackable.
Their prices are no higher than Sprint or Cingular, and often are less
due to corporate discounts.




[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.]

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <gp02t2tgdjbk6bh3a2llp06c2v92a7uv8l@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.
>
> i hope this doesn't wound you too deeply john, but i suspect that
> most sane readers would accept consumer reports statistics over your
> biased commentary.

Yeah, but he's got the insane reader base locked up.