Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4a975c95$0$1585$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> "http://www.jdpower.com/Telecom/ratings/Wireless-Call-Quality-Ratings-(Volume-2)"
Results are unsurprising. Very similar results from the past few years.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article <4a975c95$0$1585$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>> "http://www.jdpower.com/Telecom/ratings/Wireless-Call-Quality-Ratings-(Volume-2)"
>>
>
> It's a three-way tie between T-Mo, Alltel and Verizon in the West:
>
> <http://www.jdpower.com/telecom/ratin...lity-ratings-%
> 28volume-2%29/west>
>
>
Where did Alltel have coverage in the west?
And remember, these are ratings once you actually get the call
connected. It doesn't matter if there's no coverage at all.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
Agent_C wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:28:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "http://www.jdpower.com/Telecom/ratings/Wireless-Call-Quality-Ratings-(Volume-2)"
>
> Some things never change… Verizon beats the competition in all regions
> except out West (where it ties with T-Mobile).
>
> ATT & Sprint come out on the bottom, despite their patently misleading
> advertising.
I pay close attention to weasel words in advertising. I remember when
Sprint was advertising 'the nation's largest all-digital network.' Well
yes, technically that was true, even though the digital footprints of
Verizon and AT&T were both much larger, both Verizon and AT&T still had
AMPS service available so technically they were not all-digital, but
this was a good thing!
Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" was an outright lie, even the company
that did the survey work for them admitted that Cingular was
misinterpreting the results.
AT&T's "more bars in more places" was also misleading. Yes, you can use
your AT&T phone in more places in the world than you can use a Verizon
CDMA only phone, but in the U.S. AT&T's network has been far below
AT&T's network in coverage and quality for many years. Verizon could
argue that in fact with the proper Verizon handset (CDMA/GSM) you get
more coverage in the world than you do with AT&T. But Verizon tends to
stay above this level of weaseling in its ads.
Then there was Sprint's "most powerful network" claim, which was pretty
amusing, in that it upset Cingular so much.
What exactly is "call quality"? If it means how well the call sounds I
have found different phone brand/models sound better or worse on VZW.
If it means strength of signal I can tell you even though I live in a
suburban area of Hampton Roads / SE VA I barely have zero to one bar in
my house and my area has been deemed "marginal quality" by VZW
engineers themselves. There are other areas in downtown that are just
dead spots.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:4a981f5a$0$1671$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Agent_C wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:28:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "http://www.jdpower.com/Telecom/ratings/Wireless-Call-Quality-Ratings
>>> -(Volume-2)"
>>
>> Some things never change… Verizon beats the competition in all
>> regions except out West (where it ties with T-Mobile).
>>
>> ATT & Sprint come out on the bottom, despite their patently
>> misleading advertising.
>
> I pay close attention to weasel words in advertising.
Yes, we know you do. We also remember when you editorialized on your
"expert" website some years ago because of a disagreement in these very
newsgroups. You posed as an "unbiased" source of information while you
openly admitted to posting things in an attempt to influence people's
choice of carrier..
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
John Blutarsky wrote:
> How does using the same schtik over and over again constitute "clever" in
> the context you are using it?
They stay on message. They have pounded it into peoples heads that "the
network" is the most important consideration when selecting a carrier.
The other carriers jump from one ad campaign to the next trying to find
something that will negate the Verizon message. Cingular tried the bogus
"fewest dropped calls" schtick, and when that failed they moved on to
the "more bars" schtick that emphasized coverage outside the U.S.. For
the past two years AT&T has relied almost totally on the iPhone to drive
new subscriber growth. Yet the churn from Verizon due to the iPhone was
very small.
Enough wireless users have had experience with multiple carriers that
they understand the big difference in coverage and quality. Of course
the surveys by J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, Consumer Checkbook, and
Yankee Group are what give Verizon's network claims credibility.
In my town, in a relatively urban part of Silicon Valley that is home to
Apple, everyone knows which network is the only one that can provide
coverage outside the flatlands, and in the outlying suburbs. There's
been whole city council meetings dedicated to discussing what can be
done to improve AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile coverage. What they decided
earlier this year was to allow carriers to put towers in city parks
because there were no commercial areas that were suitable to improve
coverage. Nearly everyone that got up to speak, for or against,
acknowledged that if you wanted coverage in the outlying areas, right
now you had to choose Verizon. Some people used this as an argument
against allowing towers in parks, i.e. 'why should we put these
unsightly towers in parks, if people need coverage let them switch to
Verizon,' while others used it as an argument in favor, 'why should we
be limited to Verizon, we want to use an iPhone.'
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4a987610$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> John Blutarsky wrote:
>
>> How does using the same schtik over and over again constitute "clever" in
>> the context you are using it?
>
> They stay on message. They have pounded it into peoples heads that "the
> network" is the most important consideration when selecting a carrier. The
> other carriers jump from one ad campaign to the next trying to find
> something that will negate the Verizon message. Cingular tried the bogus
> "fewest dropped calls" schtick, and when that failed they moved on to the
> "more bars" schtick that emphasized coverage outside the U.S.. For the
> past two years AT&T has relied almost totally on the iPhone to drive new
> subscriber growth. Yet the churn from Verizon due to the iPhone was very
> small.
>
> Enough wireless users have had experience with multiple carriers that they
> understand the big difference in coverage and quality. Of course the
> surveys by J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, Consumer Checkbook, and Yankee
> Group are what give Verizon's network claims credibility.
>
> In my town, in a relatively urban part of Silicon Valley that is home to
> Apple, everyone knows which network is the only one that can provide
> coverage outside the flatlands, and in the outlying suburbs. There's been
> whole city council meetings dedicated to discussing what can be done to
> improve AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile coverage. What they decided earlier
> this year was to allow carriers to put towers in city parks because there
> were no commercial areas that were suitable to improve coverage. Nearly
> everyone that got up to speak, for or against, acknowledged that if you
> wanted coverage in the outlying areas, right now you had to choose
> Verizon. Some people used this as an argument against allowing towers in
> parks, i.e. 'why should we put these unsightly towers in parks, if people
> need coverage let them switch to Verizon,' while others used it as an
> argument in favor, 'why should we be limited to Verizon, we want to use an
> iPhone.'
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4a987610$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Enough wireless users have had experience with multiple carriers that they
> understand the big difference in coverage and quality. Of course the
> surveys by J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, Consumer Checkbook, and Yankee
> Group are what give Verizon's network claims credibility.
And yet 150 million wireless users are walking around without Verizon
coverage.
I'm not trying to claim that Verizon doesn't have a good network- its just
not as better than the others as you might think. As you said, Verizon has
been hammering their "it's the network" message for so long. Perhaps people
are predisposed to believing it.
I was driving through New Mexico and Arizona a few weeks ago, and my T-Mo
phone roaming on a podunk regional GSM carrier ("Plateau Wireless") had much
better coverage than my Verizon (Page Plus) phone along vast stretches of
I-25 between Carlsbad and Alberquerque. This was major highways we're
talking about- not rural areas!
Anecdotal, of course, but it surprised me- I'm apparently as susceptible to
years of repetitive on-message advertising as anyone, even though my past
personal experience with Verizon coverage (suburban/rural Kansas City,
Missouri 10 years ago) was that it was worse than Cingular's (but this was
in the TDMA days.)
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4a987610$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>> Enough wireless users have had experience with multiple carriers that
>> they understand the big difference in coverage and quality. Of course
>> the surveys by J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, Consumer Checkbook, and
>> Yankee Group are what give Verizon's network claims credibility.
>
> And yet 150 million wireless users are walking around without Verizon
> coverage.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4a989911$0$1624
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4a987610$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>
>>> Enough wireless users have had experience with multiple carriers that
>>> they understand the big difference in coverage and quality. Of course
>>> the surveys by J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, Consumer Checkbook, and
>>> Yankee Group are what give Verizon's network claims credibility.
>>
>> And yet 150 million wireless users are walking around without Verizon
>> coverage.
>
> But they're unhappy about it.
>
Not according to the latest survey. Verizon DROPPED in the latest JD Power
Customer Satisfaction Survey. The industry as a whole rose. AT&T and
Sprint both rose significantly. Most independent tests show the Verizon
network to be at best on a par with others and no independent test has
shown Verizon to be the show stopper you claim them to be.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
At 28 Aug 2009 19:58:37 -0700 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> >
> > "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:4a987610$0$1646
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >
> >> Enough wireless users have had experience with multiple carriers that
they understand the big difference in coverage and quality. Of course the
surveys by J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, Consumer Checkbook, and Yankee
Group are what give Verizon's network claims credibility.
> >
> > And yet 150 million wireless users are walking around without Verizon
coverage.
>
> But they're unhappy about it.
Apparently not enough to actually switch! Wireless is a mature industry.
Why haven't those 150 million jumped from carrier to carrier until they
finally ended up at the One True Carrier, and then stayed for life? If one
carrier was superior beyond compare, this would be the eventual pattern.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
At 28 Aug 2009 11:17:19 -0700 Steve Sobol wrote:
> > Where did Alltel have coverage in the west?
>
> Arizona.
Yep. In some areas, Alltel's GSM overlay was the only decent roaming
signal I could get on my T-Mo phone. Potentially losing Alltel's GSM
roaming service gives me the willies about the Verizon buyout of Alltel!
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:58:37 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4a987610$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>
>>> Enough wireless users have had experience with multiple carriers that
>>> they understand the big difference in coverage and quality. Of course
>>> the surveys by J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, Consumer Checkbook, and
>>> Yankee Group are what give Verizon's network claims credibility.
>>
>> And yet 150 million wireless users are walking around without Verizon
>> coverage.
>
> But they're unhappy about it.
I guess I'm just an outlier -- I'm one of those 150 million,
but I'm *not* unhappy about it. So don't speak for *me* :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote in
newsp.uzeo3bcfo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:58:37 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>
>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4a987610$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>
>>>> Enough wireless users have had experience with multiple carriers
>>>> that they understand the big difference in coverage and quality. Of
>>>> course the surveys by J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, Consumer
>>>> Checkbook, and Yankee Group are what give Verizon's network claims
>>>> credibility.
>>>
>>> And yet 150 million wireless users are walking around without
>>> Verizon coverage.
>>
>> But they're unhappy about it.
>
> I guess I'm just an outlier -- I'm one of those 150 million,
> but I'm *not* unhappy about it. So don't speak for *me* :-) .
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
You'll have to excuse Steve. His view of the cellular world is skewed by
his personal agenda. It's been that way for almost a decade and he can get
very moody when he is proven wrong. He continues to tout the results of
consumer surveys as THE FINAL WORD about the quality of Verizon service,
while ignoring the independent test that show it is just mediocre.
His blinded view of the landscape and poor knowledge of the industry make
him a very shaky informational resource.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
Folks here remember my posts about how bad AT&T was in my area all of
a sudden, and told me too bad, go somewhere else. Well, they let me
out of my contract (been with them 10 years) and I switched to Verizon.
Amazon.com's phone store got me 2 MOTO phones and 1 LG Dare (all
free) and allowed me to tailor my use without having to buy into
services I didn't use. ALL for $5 a month cheaper then Verizon.com.
Since changing, I have had *NO* problems making or receiving calls,
not only from my home area, but in other cities and states on the
east coast. A trip to LA was the same. Instant call, clear signal.
$3 for a shell for the Dare, $1 for a touch screen cover, $5 for a
real nice case, $10 for a 8gig memory card. I couldn't be happier.
Well, I've yet to get the t/screen cover. For $1, I'm not worried.
But we're talking signal here, and it's great being able to make and
receive calls without problems from where ever I am. With AT&T, it
was touch n go no matter where, even from my house. Cust service
with Verizon (the few times I needed it) was 100% better then AT&T.
Minutes? AT&T does the roll-over thing, 500 a month, I had 100's of
mins always to spare. Verizon gives 1400 a month, and free to the
numbers I want, and free to any other Verizon w/less member.
This just happens to be most, if not all, the people we use the
cell phones for. Last month, I used only 28 (!!) of the 1400.
This month, I know it will be more, but no where near 1400.
Sure, it all ends up being just another way of doing the same
thing, but Verizon makes it easier, and signal is 1000%+ better.
I've never used the other carriers, but Verizon works for
me, and I am a happy camper..which I wasn't with AT&T.
> Anecdotal, of course, but it surprised me- I'm apparently as susceptible to
> years of repetitive on-message advertising as anyone, even though my past
> personal experience with Verizon coverage (suburban/rural Kansas City,
> Missouri 10 years ago) was that it was worse than Cingular's (but this was
> in the TDMA days.)
GTE Wireless coverage sucked donkey nads back in the SBMS days. The
first time I visited KC, I had analog coverage, I think through SBMS.
That was it. Back in the late 90's.
The next time, it was digital - and native Verizon. Verizon, of course,
BORG'd both GTE and AirTouch, and IIRC the KC market used to be
AirTouch.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
In article <6_1mm.120077$8B7.83114@newsfe20.iad>, elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...
>
> At 28 Aug 2009 11:17:19 -0700 Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> > > Where did Alltel have coverage in the west?
> >
> > Arizona.
>
> Yep. In some areas, Alltel's GSM overlay was the only decent roaming
> signal I could get on my T-Mo phone. Potentially losing Alltel's GSM
> roaming service gives me the willies about the Verizon buyout of Alltel!
I doubt it'll go away. Roaming users are valuable to any network (in
terms of dollars and cents). Alltel kept GSM roaming even after
switching their own users to CDMA.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
In article <ajfi95lvgpj4j9a5d4628it2rh18c84ha4@4ax.com>, JJTj says...
> I've never used the other carriers, but Verizon works for
> me, and I am a happy camper..which I wasn't with AT&T.
Then you should stay with Verizon, for sure. But... cue my oft-repeated
mantra about how every market and every customer is different.
My problem with Verizon wasn't with coverage, although in
alt.cellular.verizon, when I described my exodus from VZW in 2004, a
couple people tried to portray my post as a complaint about coverage.
(They're idiots. It wasn't. At the time, Verizon had the best coverage
across most of the Victor Valley.)
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
tlvp wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:58:37 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> But they're unhappy about it.
>
> I guess I'm just an outlier -- I'm one of those 150 million,
> but I'm *not* unhappy about it. So don't speak for *me* :-) .
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
JJTj wrote:
> Since changing, I have had *NO* problems making or receiving calls,
> not only from my home area, but in other cities and states on the
> east coast. A trip to LA was the same. Instant call, clear signal.
The LA and SF Bay areas are two areas where you really want to have
Verizon. I have phones on AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon, and the difference
in coverage quality is stark--the surveys are absolutely correct!
> This just happens to be most, if not all, the people we use the
> cell phones for. Last month, I used only 28 (!!) of the 1400.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
In article <4a987610$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> In my town, in a relatively urban part of Silicon Valley that is home to
> Apple, everyone knows which network is the only one that can provide
> coverage outside the flatlands, and in the outlying suburbs. There's
> been whole city council meetings dedicated to discussing what can be
> done to improve AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile coverage. What they decided
> earlier this year was to allow carriers to put towers in city parks
> because there were no commercial areas that were suitable to improve
> coverage. Nearly everyone that got up to speak, for or against,
> acknowledged that if you wanted coverage in the outlying areas, right
> now you had to choose Verizon. Some people used this as an argument
> against allowing towers in parks, i.e. 'why should we put these
> unsightly towers in parks, if people need coverage let them switch to
> Verizon,' while others used it as an argument in favor, 'why should we
> be limited to Verizon, we want to use an iPhone.'
Live in Cupertino. Get local calls from people on Verizon to my
landline and they sound horrible.
Meanwhile, my sister calls me from NYC on a T-Mobile phone and it sounds
crystal-clear, no dropouts, no latency.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
SMS wrote:
> JJTj wrote:
>
>> Since changing, I have had *NO* problems making or receiving calls,
>> not only from my home area, but in other cities and states on the
>> east coast. A trip to LA was the same. Instant call, clear signal.
>
> The LA and SF Bay areas are two areas where you really want to have
> Verizon. I have phones on AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon, and the difference
> in coverage quality is stark--the surveys are absolutely correct!
>
>> This just happens to be most, if not all, the people we use the
>> cell phones for. Last month, I used only 28 (!!) of the 1400.
>
> Your plan is too big for you!
I suspect that happens to many of us who have cell phones primarily for
emergencies.
I don't think ANY of the providers offer a 30 minute/month plan!
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
At 29 Aug 2009 22:16:37 -0700 SMS wrote:
> JJTj wrote:
> > This just happens to be most, if not all, the people we use the
> > cell phones for. Last month, I used only 28 (!!) of the 1400.
>
> Your plan is too big for you!
Probably a side effect of getting a plan with "Faves/Circle" numbers.
My first family plan with T-Mo gave us 1000 shared minutes, and we'd
creeped up to 800-900 or more minutes per month between us. Then I
switched to a 1000 minutes shared plan with 5 Fave numbers (unlimited
calling to/from those five), and now we use less than 200 (billable)
minutes/month between us.
Unfortunately for us (and, I'm guessing, the other poster) there's no
cheaper plan to downgrade to that still offers "Fave" numbers.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:16:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>The LA and SF Bay areas are two areas where you really want to have
>Verizon. I have phones on AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon, and the difference
>in coverage quality is stark--the surveys are absolutely correct!
I visit the LA area a few times a year and my Sprint service has not
failed me there yet. I have family and friends scattered all over the
LA basin.
We've also made a few trips up to SF and have not found any areas
without Sprint coverage, but when it comes to SF we're pretty much in
and out without venturing into the residential areas or suburbs, so I
can't say too much about SF. LA is absolutely not a problem, though.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
In article <4a9a09dc$0$1586$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>
> tlvp wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:58:37 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> But they're unhappy about it.
> >
> > I guess I'm just an outlier -- I'm one of those 150 million,
> > but I'm *not* unhappy about it. So don't speak for *me* :-) .
>
> Sorry about that. 149,999,999.
Thank you for speaking for me. (That was sarcasm, BTW.)
Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again 
p.uzeo3bcfo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net:
Linear Mode
