Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
Page 5 - Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area. Discuss Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area, on Wireless Forums.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:29:03 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <eqr770$hdu$1@aioe.org>:
>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."
In practice, not just in theory.
>> 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.
With all due respect, that's speculation without foundation. Statistics
just doesn't work that way -- when it's flawed, it's flawed -- you can
only know the actual bias by measuring it with real data, something that
hasn't been done.
>> 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. ...
Difficult? Not really (in this case at least) -- it just takes much
more effort and money than CR is willing/able to spend.
>> 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.
Sorry, but there's just no way to know that.
>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 would actually be quite straightforward to do such sampling. Good
polling and market research organizations do so routinely. It just
takes more effort and money than CR is willing/able to spend.
>Put another way, other than Cingular's "secret" least-dropped-calls
>study,
Not really secret, since the organization gathering the data has been
disclosed, and certainly more credible than Verizon claims based solely
on internal testing.
>has any consumer group or independent research firm (i.e. J.D.
>Powers) ever rated Cingular with the best network?
In some cases (depending on what you mean by that), but how is that
relevant in this context? What better studies show, including JD
Powers, is that differences between carriers are relatively small, on
the order of the margin of error. And they have no bearing on the
credibility of CR in any event. If (say) someone claims that
human-caused climate change is real based on that person's belief, it's
still not credible even though real scientists agree -- it's simply a
coincidence.
>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.)
Fair enough. I personally don't think experience of a few years is
relevant to the current situation, and my own observation is that
Cingular cover is currently better in general than any other carrier.
>Certainly that's not scientific, and certainly is not a "representative
>sample" but it is generally the case in my experience.
Likewise.
>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.
Likewise, for those reasons, and also in my case for the reason that
Verizon hasn't gotten its network right in areas I care about, where
Cingular clearly has the best coverage.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:26:34 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <er11av$lh3$3@aioe.org>:
>But as a long time cell user, on a pure sound-quality basis only, all
>else being equal, what's your preference? I used TDMA long before I used
>GSM, and was pleasantly surprised how much better GSM calls sounded, and
>I never thought CDMA sounded very good based on very infrequent use of
>friends' handsets. A good friend and former employee of mine has worked
>for Sprint a few years now and constantly tries to get me to join the
>"dark side"... ;-)
GSM sound quality is generally better than CDMA2000 because of dedicated
channels and a superior codec. CDMA2000 can sound quite good in ideal
conditions, but degrades under load, and can be truly horrible if the
network gets saturated.
>Secondly, I realize Cingular had coverage problems out west on 1900MHz
>(the old PacTel network that T-Mo has inherited.) But post merger, now
>that Cingular has the old AT&T Wireless network (that apparently you were
>a former customer of) isn't it nearly as good as the old ATTWS used to be
>(other than the lack of analog?) ...
Cingular actually has a better network now than the old ATTWS, as a
result of both network upgrades and roaming on what's now the T-Mobile
network.
>As a funny aside, due to Cingular's extreme laziness in updating their
>IRDBs (the TDMA equivalent of a PRL), my wife and I, both Cingular
>customers with tri-mode phones, simultaneously roamed on different
>carriers on a trip to San Diego- she on Verizon (in analog), and I on
>AT&T TDMA. I'd have preferred the other way around, given the choice-
>she had a cute little red Nokia 8260 that could barely do ten hours
>standby in analog, while I had a 5165 with a far sportier battery life.
What you're seeing is probably different "homing" of the two different
SIMs. Even with ENS, the SIM will prefer its "home" network. This
issue will only go away when network integration is complete (as it now
is in most, but not all, areas).
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:47:49 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d480a9$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>I do a lot of hiking and XC skiing, and this is where the AMPS coverage
>is extremely helpful, even not far from the urban area.
Verizon's coverage map says otherwise -- there are almost no AMPS-only
areas here in the SF Bay Area.
>If Verizon turns
>off AMPS in 2008,
As is very likely.
>I think that it will make Cingular and Verizon pretty
>close in coverage in the Bay Area, since Cingular is working on catching
>up in digital coverage.
Cingular is actually ahead in digital coverage.
>In 2008, that Forida analog coverage will almost certainly be gone
>unless the FCC changes their policy to only allow AMPS to be turned off
>in areas where there is digital coverage. In Alaska, they'll keep AMPS
>on for a long time, until they come up with a viable alternative, such
>as what Australia is doing with W-CDMA in the outback.
AMPS does _not_ have longer range than digital. What matters is handset
power.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea
Todd Allcock wrote:
> I realize your main requirement is coverage, and I can understand that.
> But as a long time cell user, on a pure sound-quality basis only, all
> else being equal, what's your preference? I used TDMA long before I used
> GSM, and was pleasantly surprised how much better GSM calls sounded, and
> I never thought CDMA sounded very good based on very infrequent use of
> friends' handsets.
Sound quality depends on several factors. CDMA can degrade each channel
in order to cram more calls onto one tower, so GSM will be more
consistent during a call. OTOH, GSM is much more likely to drop the
call. Cingular's advertising claims not-withstanding, you get a lot more
dropped calls on Cingular than on Verizon or Sprint.
Sound quality has always varied more by phone than by technology. A lot
depends on the CoDec being used in the handset. Voice quality keeps
declining as the encoding rate goes down. If you use an SMV Codec (CDMA)
at the same bit rate as an AMR Codec (GSM), the CDMA phone will sound
better than the GSM phone. However it's up to the operator to decide
what bit rate will be used, and an AMR equipped phone could sound better
than a SMV equipped phone, if the the AMR bit rate is much higher.
All of the recent tests done on sound quality show CDMA to have better
sound, but these were laboratory tests, with the SMV decoder for CDMA
and the the AMR decoder for GSM, and with the bit rate not degraded due
to network congestion.
I have both Cingular GSM service (on a prepaid MVNO) and Verizon
CDMA/AMPS, and I don't notice any difference in sound quality.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea
SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> I realize your main requirement is coverage, and I can understand
>> that. But as a long time cell user, on a pure sound-quality basis
>> only, all
>> else being equal, what's your preference? I used TDMA long before I used
>> GSM, and was pleasantly surprised how much better GSM calls sounded, and
>> I never thought CDMA sounded very good based on very infrequent use of
>> friends' handsets.
>
> Sound quality depends on several factors. CDMA can degrade each channel
> in order to cram more calls onto one tower, so GSM will be more
> consistent during a call. OTOH, GSM is much more likely to drop the
> call. Cingular's advertising claims not-withstanding, you get a lot more
> dropped calls on Cingular than on Verizon or Sprint.
>
> Sound quality has always varied more by phone than by technology. A lot
> depends on the CoDec being used in the handset. Voice quality keeps
> declining as the encoding rate goes down. If you use an SMV Codec (CDMA)
> at the same bit rate as an AMR Codec (GSM), the CDMA phone will sound
> better than the GSM phone. However it's up to the operator to decide
> what bit rate will be used, and an AMR equipped phone could sound better
> than a SMV equipped phone, if the the AMR bit rate is much higher.
>
> All of the recent tests done on sound quality show CDMA to have better
> sound, but these were laboratory tests, with the SMV decoder for CDMA
> and the the AMR decoder for GSM, and with the bit rate not degraded due
> to network congestion.
>
> I have both Cingular GSM service (on a prepaid MVNO) and Verizon
> CDMA/AMPS, and I don't notice any difference in sound quality.
Don't forget, there's still an "age related" factor, when it comes
to sound quality...
Typically, as one gets older, one tends to have a certain degree of high
frequency hearing loss... To this group, the "tinny" sounding earpieces
(to those without any hearing loss) may actually sound better than those
with full-range fidelity.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea
Notan wrote:
> Don't forget, there's still an "age related" factor, when it comes
> to sound quality...
>
> Typically, as one gets older, one tends to have a certain degree of high
> frequency hearing loss... To this group, the "tinny" sounding earpieces
> (to those without any hearing loss) may actually sound better than those
> with full-range fidelity.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:13:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d4b0dd$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> I realize your main requirement is coverage, and I can understand that.
>> But as a long time cell user, on a pure sound-quality basis only, all
>> else being equal, what's your preference? I used TDMA long before I used
>> GSM, and was pleasantly surprised how much better GSM calls sounded, and
>> I never thought CDMA sounded very good based on very infrequent use of
>> friends' handsets.
>
>Sound quality depends on several factors. CDMA can degrade each channel
>in order to cram more calls onto one tower, so GSM will be more
>consistent during a call. OTOH, GSM is much more likely to drop the
>call. Cingular's advertising claims not-withstanding, you get a lot more
>dropped calls on Cingular than on Verizon or Sprint.
CDMA2000 is actually more likely to drop calls than GSM due to cell
"breathing" under load, along with other technical issues, and in fact
the CDMA2000 carriers here in the San Francisco Bay Area have more
problems with dropped calls than Cingular.
The only real dropped call issue with GSM is when moving from one cell
to a cell that's completely full (no available capacity), but that's
quite rare in practice.
>All of the recent tests done on sound quality show CDMA to have better
>sound, ...
Not true, and notably no citations.
>I have both Cingular GSM service (on a prepaid MVNO) and Verizon
>CDMA/AMPS, and I don't notice any difference in sound quality.
But then you have a personal axe to grind against GSM in general and
Cingular in particular, not to mention a handset that gives subnormal
performance if your reports are accurate and not just made up.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea
Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> In article <45d4b7d3$0$27226$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>
>>> (to those without any hearing loss) may actually sound better than those
>>> with full-range fidelity.
>> Coffee helps prevent hearing loss.
>
> Is it really necessary to re-start the coffee thread?
IMVAIO, that was the most interesting part of the thread. Navas making
up stories about Extended GSM, his baseless attacks on Consumer Reports,
and his endless shilling for Cingular have gotten pretty old, and no one
pays much attention anymore.
It's much more interesting to discuss the relative merits of different
coffees. In fact, I think that future posts should include the type of
coffee maker, coffee grinder, and mug that the poster uses.
Sorry, I'm getting ready to go out of the country on Saturday, and I've
been up all night working on a presentation, so I've been drinking a lot
of coffee.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
At 15 Feb 2007 17:23:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> The good reason is that CR subscribers have considerably different
> demographics than the universe of cellular, making any CR survey
> unrepresentative.
So that begs the question is the CR subscribers' demographic more likely
or less likely to have good service or bad service? I can't personally
envision a scenario that would cause CR subscribers to have vastly
different cell service than non-subscribers.
> Then there's the problem of self-selction.
I'll agree that's a bigger problem, assuming that unhappy customers might
be more likely to "grumble" about service than happy ones are to gush.
But again, that would drag everyone's scores down- not one carrier's, so
the relative results wouldn't be much different.
I suppose the easiest way to make the study accurate for me, would be
simply to subscribe to CR, then the results would apply to me, since I
would be part of the represented universe.
I'll let you all know how my subscription to CR affects my cellphone
reception... ;-)
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:15:19 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <er2lbh$drb$3@aioe.org>:
>At 15 Feb 2007 17:23:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> The good reason is that CR subscribers have considerably different
>> demographics than the universe of cellular, making any CR survey
>> unrepresentative.
>
>So that begs the question is the CR subscribers' demographic more likely
>or less likely to have good service or bad service?
With all due respect, there is no such question -- you can only make
valid generalizations from proper sampling, and the CR survey isn't even
a proper sampling of CR subscribers (because of self-selection).
There's simply no way to know the sample bias. It's thus just pure
speculation.
>I can't personally
>envision a scenario that would cause CR subscribers to have vastly
>different cell service than non-subscribers.
I can easily think of lots of things that would bias the result in
unpredictable ways, but without real data, there's simply no way of
knowing which of them might be at work.
>> Then there's the problem of self-selction.
>
>I'll agree that's a bigger problem, assuming that unhappy customers might
>be more likely to "grumble" about service than happy ones are to gush.
>
>But again, that would drag everyone's scores down- not one carrier's, so
>the relative results wouldn't be much different.
There are lots of other possible factors that might well differ from
carrier to carrier, but again, without real data it's all just
speculation.
>I suppose the easiest way to make the study accurate for me, would be
>simply to subscribe to CR, then the results would apply to me, since I
>would be part of the represented universe.
1. That's not how statistics works. The issue is learning something
about the entire target universe, not any one individual.
2. That wouldn't solve the problem of self-selection.
>I'll let you all know how my subscription to CR affects my cellphone
>reception... ;-)
Whatever.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
In article <g6e9t21maedaml7a15v1o0uij6gblcrhbq@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:13:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45d4b0dd$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> >I have both Cingular GSM service (on a prepaid MVNO) and Verizon
> >CDMA/AMPS, and I don't notice any difference in sound quality.
>
> But then you have a personal axe to grind against GSM in general and
> Cingular in particular, not to mention a handset that gives subnormal
> performance if your reports are accurate and not just made up.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea
Todd Allcock wrote:
> So that begs the question is the CR subscribers' demographic more likely
> or less likely to have good service or bad service? I can't personally
> envision a scenario that would cause CR subscribers to have vastly
> different cell service than non-subscribers.
Even though there are certainly some demographic differences between CR
subscribers and the general public, none of these would materially
affect the results of one carrier more than another carrier. The
demographics of Consumer Reports readers versus the general population
include higher education level, higher income, more moderate
politically, and middle-age to older age. On the one hand, these
demographics would tend to make people more critical of products and
services, but on the other hand, these demographics may understand the
limitations of cellular communications better than uneducated people, so
they may cut the carriers more slack.
> I'll agree that's a bigger problem, assuming that unhappy customers might
> be more likely to "grumble" about service than happy ones are to gush.
> But again, that would drag everyone's scores down- not one carrier's, so
> the relative results wouldn't be much different.
I read a funny article about that in SmartMoney magazine yesterday. It
seems that there is very little middle ground in most reviews by
individuals of products and services. They either hate something or love
it. I.e. a five star review for a stapler at Amazon, "This stapler is
great. It works very well and staples many papers together."
What makes the CR survey so valuable is that they don't just ask "how's
your service?" they go into great detail with questions on specific
aspects of the service. But as you stated, even if the people that
choose to respond are more or less critical of a service, this will
extend across all the carriers, and will cancel out.
In earlier years, Navas complained that the reason Cingular was rated so
poorly was that their TDMA subscribers were dragging down their scores
(though in reality the TDMA/AMPS subscribers were probably dragging the
scores up). Now that the TDMA subscribers are an insignificant portion
of the total, he's come up with a new excuse, apparently he believes
that the Cingular subscribers that choose to respond to the survey are
somehow more critical of their service than the Verizon subscribers that
choose to respond. Certainly if there were any evidence that CR's
subscribers demographics somehow benefit one carrier over another, he'd
have presented that evidence, or at least a theory of that evidence. As
you pointed out "non-random and non-representative are not the same thing."
> I suppose the easiest way to make the study accurate for me, would be
> simply to subscribe to CR, then the results would apply to me, since I
> would be part of the represented universe.
>
> I'll let you all know how my subscription to CR affects my cellphone
> reception... ;-)
I read it at the library, so I guess I'm not represented in the survey
either.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:25:53 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
<jgkeegan-61871D.18255315022007@individual.net>:
>In article <g6e9t21maedaml7a15v1o0uij6gblcrhbq@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:13:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <45d4b0dd$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> >I have both Cingular GSM service (on a prepaid MVNO) and Verizon
>> >CDMA/AMPS, and I don't notice any difference in sound quality.
>>
>> But then you have a personal axe to grind against GSM in general and
>> Cingular in particular, not to mention a handset that gives subnormal
>> performance if your reports are accurate and not just made up.
>
>"Not true, and notably no citations."
>
>hypocrisy is a bitter pill, john.
I'll take your word for it.
--
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
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:09:59 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d4f65d$0$27188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> So that begs the question is the CR subscribers' demographic more likely
>> or less likely to have good service or bad service? I can't personally
>> envision a scenario that would cause CR subscribers to have vastly
>> different cell service than non-subscribers.
>
>Even though there are certainly some demographic differences between CR
>subscribers and the general public, none of these would materially
>affect the results of one carrier more than another carrier.
There's simply no way of knowing that without real data, which doesn't
exist, so that's just your own unsupported speculation.
>The
>demographics of Consumer Reports readers versus the general population
>include higher education level, higher income, more moderate
>politically, and middle-age to older age.
Citation? Apparently not.
>On the one hand, these
>demographics would tend to make people more critical of products and
>services, but on the other hand, these demographics may understand the
>limitations of cellular communications better than uneducated people, so
>they may cut the carriers more slack.
Again, just your speculation.
>What makes the CR survey so valuable is that they don't just ask "how's
>your service?" they go into great detail with questions on specific
>aspects of the service.
Actually, it doesn't -- the survey is based on simple generic multiple
choice questions (as you should know if you had any actual knowledge of
the methodology).
>But as you stated, even if the people that
>choose to respond are more or less critical of a service, this will
>extend across all the carriers, and will cancel out.
Again, just your speculation.
>In earlier years, Navas complained that the reason Cingular was rated so
>poorly was that their TDMA subscribers were dragging down their scores
>(though in reality the TDMA/AMPS subscribers were probably dragging the
>scores up).
What I actually did was point out the invalidity of lumping multiple
types of GSM and TDMA together, just like the invalidity of lumping
together Sprint CDMA2000 and Nextel iDEN.
>Now that the TDMA subscribers are an insignificant portion
>of the total, he's come up with a new excuse, apparently he believes
>that the Cingular subscribers that choose to respond to the survey are
>somehow more critical of their service than the Verizon subscribers that
>choose to respond.
I've said nothing of the kind. What I have done is point out the
invalidity of the CR survey. Regardless, as I expected, Cingular is
doing much better indeed in the market now that most of the migrations
are behind it.
>Certainly if there were any evidence that CR's
>subscribers demographics somehow benefit one carrier over another, he'd
>have presented that evidence, or at least a theory of that evidence.
On the contrary -- there's simply no way to know the sampling bias
without real data, which simply doesn't exist.
>As
>you pointed out "non-random and non-representative are not the same thing."
I guess you have no idea how meaningless that is.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:aqn9t294p65unfp3hpt9maatd4oi5p58eo@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:15:19 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <er2lbh$drb$3@aioe.org>:
>
>>At 15 Feb 2007 17:23:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> The good reason is that CR subscribers have considerably different
>>> demographics than the universe of cellular, making any CR survey
>>> unrepresentative.
>>
>>So that begs the question is the CR subscribers' demographic more
likely
>>or less likely to have good service or bad service?
>
> With all due respect, there is no such question -- you can only make
> valid generalizations from proper sampling, and the CR survey isn't
even
> a proper sampling of CR subscribers (because of self-selection).
> There's simply no way to know the sample bias. It's thus just pure
> speculation.
So you are saying that you can't prove any sample bias. Thanks for
playing.
>
>>I can't personally
>>envision a scenario that would cause CR subscribers to have vastly
>>different cell service than non-subscribers.
>
> I can easily think of lots of things that would bias the result in
> unpredictable ways, but without real data, there's simply no way of
> knowing which of them might be at work.
Bullshit. Unless you can prove that CR subscribers have a skewed view
of service and coverage, it is a very real-world sample.
>
>>> Then there's the problem of self-selction.
>>
>>I'll agree that's a bigger problem, assuming that unhappy customers
might
>>be more likely to "grumble" about service than happy ones are to gush.
>>
>>But again, that would drag everyone's scores down- not one carrier's,
so
>>the relative results wouldn't be much different.
>
> There are lots of other possible factors that might well differ from
> carrier to carrier, but again, without real data it's all just
> speculation.
>
You keep talking about "other factors"- there are none. Either they
have the same view of service or they don't. Period.
>>I suppose the easiest way to make the study accurate for me, would be
>>simply to subscribe to CR, then the results would apply to me, since I
>>would be part of the represented universe.
>
> 1. That's not how statistics works. The issue is learning something
> about the entire target universe, not any one individual.
>
> 2. That wouldn't solve the problem of self-selection.
All surveys are self-selected. No survey is done where the respondent
is required to answer questions. All those surveyed make the conscious
decision to participate in the survey, and therefore self-select.
>
>>I'll let you all know how my subscription to CR affects my cellphone
>>reception... ;-)
>
> Whatever.
>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:45d4f65d$0$27188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
> I read a funny article about that in SmartMoney magazine yesterday. It
> seems that there is very little middle ground in most reviews by
> individuals of products and services. They either hate something or
> love it. I.e. a five star review for a stapler at Amazon, "This
> stapler is great. It works very well and staples many papers
> together."
>
As someone responbile for overseeing the Customer Satisfaction program
(surveys included) for a division a Fortune 100 company, I can see many valid
points in this. Very few surveys are done where a middle-of-the-road rating
is given. The majority of responses are typically the highest and lowest
rating available on the survey.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:aq59t2papstdv18pq97mm2u80rbb53cqv3@4ax.com:
>
> At least Cingular used data from a respected third party, unlike
> Verizon, which bases its own claims entirely on far more suspect
> internal data, making them much less credible.
>
I'm sorry, Mr. Novice- stating that the source of their data is "experience
with national carriers" (which is the small print now used in their ads)
hardly qualifies as a respected third party. A respected third party that
believed the claim to be valid would most certainly allow the use of their
name. And the fact that they are spinning it this way makes the data far
less credible than a comapny stating that they are using their own data.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea
Scott wrote:
> Bullshit. Unless you can prove that CR subscribers have a skewed view
> of service and coverage, it is a very real-world sample.
Not only that CR subscribers have a skewed view of service and coverage,
but that they only have a skewed view of service and coverage when it
comes to one carrier and not another.
You gotta love "there's simply no way of knowing which of them might be
at work." I guess he assume that there simply must be some biases at
work that affect only Cingular, because it just isn't possible that the
results are valid. It's a tough road to hoe when you're a shill for
Cingular, and every survey by every entity shows results that you don't
like.
> You keep talking about "other factors"- there are none. Either they
> have the same view of service or they don't. Period.
I'd like to see his theory of "other factors" as well. I tried hard to
imagine what these could possibly be, in a way that doesn't affect all
the carriers equally, but I couldn't think of any. It will take the
creative mind of Navas to invent some of these factors, but I have no
doubt that he's furiously working on it.
> All surveys are self-selected. No survey is done where the respondent
> is required to answer questions.
Bingo!
Geez, even if CR mailed out surveys at random to the entire country, the
respondees would still be self-selected, they'd just be more random.
Even so, there's no evidence at all that the non-randomness has affected
the results for one carrier and not another. As Todd pointed out
"non-random and non-representative are not the same thing."
It's like the Consumer Reports survey of vehicle reliability. It's
self-selected and non-random, but I don't think that anyone believes
that a CR subscriber is more or less likely to report what problems they
had with their vehicle than a non-subscriber, or that they're more
likely to report problems on a Toyota than a Honda or a Chevy.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:1h2at2pvrdkngquliu18miur324raej3td@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:25:40 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45d5081a$0$27225$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>
>>> All surveys are self-selected. No survey is done where the respondent
>>> is required to answer questions.
>>
>>Bingo!
>
> That's not what self-selected means. Learn something about statistics.
>
Sorry, John- I use more statistics in the first hour of my day than you
have ever been able to glean from your Google searches.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea
Scott wrote:
> I'm sorry, Mr. Novice- stating that the source of their data is "experience
> with national carriers" (which is the small print now used in their ads)
> hardly qualifies as a respected third party. A respected third party that
> believed the claim to be valid would most certainly allow the use of their
> name. And the fact that they are spinning it this way makes the data far
> less credible than a comapny stating that they are using their own data.
Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.
Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect. Navas
and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco BayArea
Scott wrote:
> Bullshit. Unless you can prove that CR subscribers have a skewed view
> of service and coverage, it is a very real-world sample.
According to The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Mar.,
1978), pp. 247-251, "The Consumer Reports subscriber is found to be
richer, better educated, and more likely to own a fairly wide range of
durable goods."
Given the demographics, it'd be interesting to know whether the CR
subscriber base, which is better educated and more affluent than the
general public, is more or less critical of goods and services.
In any case, any difference cancels out because it would be present no
matter which carrier the subscriber was reviewing. CR surveys are
designed to eliminate this sort of bias, so any differences between the
CR subscriber base and the general population cancel out.
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:50:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d5e0d9$0$27255$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. Unless you can prove that CR subscribers have a skewed view
>> of service and coverage, it is a very real-world sample.
>
>According to The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Mar.,
>1978), pp. 247-251, "The Consumer Reports subscriber is found to be
>richer, better educated, and more likely to own a fairly wide range of
>durable goods."
>
>Given the demographics, it'd be interesting to know whether the CR
>subscriber base, which is better educated and more affluent than the
>general public, is more or less critical of goods and services.
>
>In any case, any difference cancels out because it would be present no
>matter which carrier the subscriber was reviewing.
Statistics simply doesn't work that way:
* There's no way to know the bias without data that doesn't exist.
* Bias can only be eliminated by proper sampling techniques.
>CR surveys are
>designed to eliminate this sort of bias, so any differences between the
>CR subscriber base and the general population cancel out.
That's simply untrue.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:40:25 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45d527af$0$27176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, Mr. Novice- stating that the source of their data is "experience
>> with national carriers" (which is the small print now used in their ads)
>> hardly qualifies as a respected third party. A respected third party that
>> believed the claim to be valid would most certainly allow the use of their
>> name. And the fact that they are spinning it this way makes the data far
>> less credible than a comapny stating that they are using their own data.
>
>Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
>every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.
>
>Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
>company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
>have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
>provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect. Navas
>and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.
Wrong on all counts.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
At 16 Feb 2007 17:28:11 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> >CR surveys are
> >designed to eliminate this sort of bias, so any differences between
the
> >CR subscriber base and the general population cancel out.
>
> That's simply untrue.
Yet also irrelevant. The survey can stand alone as a specific population-
i.e. "4 out of 5 dentists."
Like it or not, "a survey of CR subscribers found brand X better than Y"
carries weight as a data point. And your statistics 101 excuses for it's
lack of validity might be a reason to keep it out of your doctoral
thesis, but not a reason to invalidate it's value as a reference for
people researching cell service. In many ways, a limited population
survey is MORE useful. For example, I would prefer a survey of "best
luggage" to be comprised only of, say, frequent business travelers, or
airline pilots, over one culled from the "general population," many of
whom don't travel or travel infrequently.
--
"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
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:40:25 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45d527af$0$27176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
>>every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.
>>
>>Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
>>company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
>>have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
>>provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect. Navas
>>and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.
>
> Wrong on all counts.
He's not wrong on all counts. If he is, please point me to the released
copy of the Cingular survey.
--
"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
Re: Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area 