Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
>> Samsung is OK usually, but the other two are always (ALWAYS) crap...
>> especially Motorola, which is to be avoided at all costs, even if you
>> have to pay an early termination fee and switch providers!!!
>
> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
> twelve years and have been satisfied!
Anyone can get used to mediocrity. To be fair, motorola does put out a
decent handset from time to time. At best, these decent Motorola handsets
are not QUITE up to Nokia quality, but some come close. Too bad about the
other 999 shitty handsets motorola foists off on the unsuspecting public for
every good one they produce. The last good motorola handset was a
T720/T730. Unfortunately, even THAT one got a bad rep, because the
instruction manual was WRONG. Battery life issues were caused by owners
IMPROPERLY charging the batteries because they did the right thing and READ
THE MANUAL.
Basically, the battery needed to be charged for at least 12 or 24 hours
(forget which) but the manual was vague enough to say something like "charge
until the indicator shows full"... which would happen in as little as 15
minutes. And then the memory effect killed the batteries quick. Thus you
had lots of Motorola owners complaining that they need to charge their
(FAIRLY NEW) batteries several times a day, when (if properly charged) they
would last several days.
But if you like Motorola, I am dead serious when I suggest that you would
probably LOVE Nokia. For starters, unless you are tone deaf, sound quality
will be about 1000% improved, just from switching from Motorola (anything)
to Nokia (anything). It will literally be like switching from a
tin-can-and-string type sound quality to a land-line-telephone-replacement
quality. Your reception will be at least 30% better with Nokia, assuming
the motorola and Nokia were compatible with the same network. This
translates to a lot less dropped calls and a lot less (what? WHAT?
WHAT!!!!?????!?!!) A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal bars,
calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!), calls do not
drop, and sound quality is superb. Then you think back and remember that in
the same area, you couldn't even connect a call with the motorola and the
quality difference is painfully clear. At best, motorola will never be
qualified to polish the boots of nokia. Nokia is what motorola would like
to be but (sadly) will never be.
In case anybody is wondering, I've had to carry many motorola handsets (no
choice, that's what various employers have given me, without asking or
caring about my input). In all cases, I've relied on my personal nokia (and
some other, but mostly nokia) brand handsets to bail me out when the
motorolas fell short. In some cases, the two handsets I was carrying were
on the same network. Motorola would often show no signal/no service, and
I'd be chatting on the nokia handset (off and on) all day in the same areas
where I couldn't connect ONE call with a motorola handset on the same
network and the same towers!!! And no, there was never anything wrong with
the motorola handsets. They were all working exactly as designed,
unfortunately. I say unfortunately as (in my opinion) they were ALL
defective, but the tech guys of various cell providers all disagreed with me
and refused to repair or replace the motorola handsets, even if I pointed
out that the nokia handset ON THEIR NETWORK worked where the motorola
didn't.... -Dave
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47a7dff4$0$84201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
>> twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray "brick"
>> about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I replaced that
>> ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served me well for six
>> years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to work and meet my
>> needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two to four years. I
>> know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend money to to replace a
>> working phone just because I CAN. Anyway, that's just Verizon's "hook"
>> to get me to sign a new contract. . . . I've spent more time WITHOUT a
>> contract, than with. . . . It doesn't do a thing for me!
>
> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the
> UI.
I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
improved it greatly. Unfortunately, the radio portion always has sucked,
and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if you've ever
used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you would quickly
realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas really does suck,
badly. -Dave
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:33:07 -0500, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in
<fo8osu$4jm$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:47a7dff4$0$84201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net.. .
>> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in the
>> UI.
>
>I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
>improved it greatly.
True, although current handsets crash too much, and carrier customizing
can screw up the functionality, as in the case of the Cingular-branded
V3xx.
<http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola#Cingular-branded_V3xx>
<http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola#Modding_Cingular_V3xx>
The big problem for Motorola in the UI department is that it's trying to
support too many platforms.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/04/motorola_phone_business_analysis/>
>Unfortunately, the radio portion always has sucked,
>and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if you've ever
>used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you would quickly
>realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas really does suck,
>badly.
I've had several of both, and find the better Motorola handsets to be
just as good as the better Nokia handsets in the radio department.
Where Motorola has fallen short is in some of its cheaper handsets, like
the V180.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:30:47 -0500, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in
<fo8op4$44r$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the last
>> twelve years and have been satisfied!
>
>Anyone can get used to mediocrity. To be fair, motorola does put out a
>decent handset from time to time. At best, these decent Motorola handsets
>are not QUITE up to Nokia quality, but some come close.
Every bit as good in my experience.
>Too bad about the
>other 999 shitty handsets motorola foists off on the unsuspecting public for
>every good one they produce.
While Motorola has produced some poor handsets in the radio department,
like the V180, those have been in the minority.
>The last good motorola handset was a
>T720/T730.
Both the V5xx series and RAZR series are actually quite good.
>But if you like Motorola, I am dead serious when I suggest that you would
>probably LOVE Nokia.
I've had several of both, and give the edge to Motorola. My Motorola
V3xx is better than any Nokia I've tried.
>For starters, unless you are tone deaf, sound quality
>will be about 1000% improved, just from switching from Motorola (anything)
>to Nokia (anything). It will literally be like switching from a
>tin-can-and-string type sound quality to a land-line-telephone-replacement
>quality.
My V3xx has excellent sound quality. Have you ever tried one?
>Your reception will be at least 30% better with Nokia, assuming
>the motorola and Nokia were compatible with the same network. This
>translates to a lot less dropped calls and a lot less (what? WHAT?
>WHAT!!!!?????!?!!) A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
>into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
>handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal bars,
>calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!), calls do not
>drop, and sound quality is superb. Then you think back and remember that in
>the same area, you couldn't even connect a call with the motorola and the
>quality difference is painfully clear. At best, motorola will never be
>qualified to polish the boots of nokia. Nokia is what motorola would like
>to be but (sadly) will never be.
Again, that's not my experience with the Motorola V5xx series and the
V3xx against several Nokia handsets -- the Motorola handsets have
performed as well or better than the Nokia handsets.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Todd Allcock wrote:
> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old 800-
> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
> subscribers! ;-)
I was at the library earlier tonight, and saw the collection of old
Consumer Reports. I went back and looked at the 2003 cell phone issue.
It's amazing just how horrible the old PacBell system actually was.
While the differences between AT&T TDMA/AMPS and Verizon CDMA/AMPS were
still fairly high, the PacBell/Cingular 1900 MHz GSM network was just a
joke in terms of "No Service."
They only did six urban areas back then, SF, LA, NYC, DC, Dallas, and
Chicago. Verizon was the best in all six areas, but only in SF and LA
were the differences all that high. In NYC and LA, AT&T got dinged for
"circuits full" which indeed was a huge problem in NYC at the time, as
they struggled to add capacity fast enough to keep up with their
subscriber growth.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:57:30 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a7ec15$0$84198$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out decades-old 800-
>> MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell system on us T-Mo
>> subscribers! ;-)
>
>I was at the library earlier tonight, and saw the collection of old
>Consumer Reports. I went back and looked at the 2003 cell phone issue.
>It's amazing just how horrible the old PacBell system actually was.
>While the differences between AT&T TDMA/AMPS and Verizon CDMA/AMPS were
>still fairly high, the PacBell/Cingular 1900 MHz GSM network was just a
>joke in terms of "No Service."
Simply not true.
>They only did six urban areas back then, SF, LA, NYC, DC, Dallas, and
>Chicago. Verizon was the best in all six areas, but only in SF and LA
>were the differences all that high. In NYC and LA, AT&T got dinged for
>"circuits full" which indeed was a huge problem in NYC at the time, as
>they struggled to add capacity fast enough to keep up with their
>subscriber growth.
That wasn't what CR was trying to measure, and the differences were
relatively small in any event.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in news:47A7DC93.30204
@comcast.net:
> When the old phone bites the dust or when a new phone will do something
> I NEED and the old one won't, THEN I'll buy a new one. Each time I've
> replaced a phone, it has been because the battery was starting to fail
> and I couldn't see buying a replacement battery for an antique!
>
>
>
Anybody got a rubber duckie antenna for the original Motorola Brick
handheld? I loaned it out to someone who was traveling on an emergency so
he'd have an emergency analog phone for the boonies, and the black rubber
just split apart when it got bent. The phone is perfect and still works
but I want to keep it original. It's quite a piece of history, you know.
$1.99 at a thrift shop. I have 2 battery packs I restored at Batteries
Plus, the 12V car cord that replaces the batteries for mobile, the carrying
case, even the manual.
A real Motorola made by Motorola, not the Chinese slavers, you can't hurt
it.....
That Star Tac was the best phone Motorola ever made....
The shrink tubing I covered the antenna coil with looks like hell on the
brick.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> Todd Allcock wrote
>>> I disagree. By the time the switch to GSM happened (in Cingular's
>>> TDMA areas) the network was 20-years old and about as fully built
>>> out (geographically) as it was going to get. Sure, towers get
>>> added to increase capacity or fill holes, but the footprint of the
>>> system hasn't really changed significantly in some time for the
>>> legacy 800MHz carriers.
>> The advantage of AMPS is in the fringe areas, because the range is so
>> much greater. That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
> Not true. The range of all these for comparable handsets is roughly comparable.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
GSM has a digital cliff that the other two technologys dont, and
that has a dramatic effect on range outside the built up areas.
>> For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where every survey shows
>> that Verizon's coverage is far superior to AT&T/Cingular, there is no
>> GSM coverage in a lot of areas just outside of the urban core, but
>> you can usually get CDMA or AMPS coverage in those areas.
> Not true, as I've proven repeatedly in the past.
>>> Sure, because now you're using AT&T(Blue)'s fully built-out
>>> decades-old 800- MHz network and fobbed off the horrid old PacBell
>>> system on us T-Mo subscribers! ;-)
>> LOL, finally T-Mobile got approval to put a 1900 MHz tower in my
>> neighborhhood, after about eight years of trying (prior to T-Mobile,
>> it was Cingular that was trying).
>> However don't get too excited over the AT&T 800 MHz network, as its
>> coverage is still not nearly as extensive as Verizon's, at least in the Bay Area.
> Again, not true.
>> The old AT&T Wireless TDMA/AMPS network was actually quite
>> good for its time, routinely being rated the best network in the Bay
>> Area by a small amount over Verizon. They rested on their laurels for
>> too long, then screwed up the GSM conversion and went into a death
>> spiral as the corporate customers abandoned them.
> In fact doing quite well in this area.
>> I'm sure you're not foolish enough to believe anything Navas says
>> about the quality of Bay Area coverage.
> Believe you instead?
>> Consumer Reports rated Verizon tops in terms of coverage and they
>> were tied with Sprint and T-Mobile for fewest dropped calls, with
>> AT&T a distant fourth. This was in the January 08 issue.
> It said nothing of the kind.
> Still no proof of any kind. Just lots of the same old claims.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in
news:fo8op4$44r$1@registered.motzarella.org:
> A Nokia handset will also surprise you as you go
> into areas where you remember you had NO SIGNAL with your motorola
> handset... and find that the nokia handset is showing 1 or 2 signal
> bars, calls go through on first try (even with 1 bar showing!!!),
> calls do not drop, and sound quality is superb
This comment about Nokia is only about cellular radio bands.....
The Nokia N800 Linux internet tablet has the most sensitive 802.11b/g
transceiver I have ever seen and it has no external antenna! The silly
thing can connect and use wifi hotspots my Gateway laptop cannot even
detect! It's Bluetooth transceiver is also very hot. It will successfully
connect to my MotoROKR Z6m DUN to the internet on EVDO when the tablet is
way beyond Bluetooth range...60' away from the phone in the bedroom on
charge because the Nokia killed it streaming video and audio...(c;
If the Nokia phones are as hot as the N800 wifi/bluetooth radios, they are
one hot phone.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:11:02 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote in <60q9f8F1qs9iuU1@mid.individual.net>:
>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
I'm pleased to inform you that you're earned a coveted place in my twit
filter. It's a difficult honor -- your posts have to be pretty much
devoid of any real content -- but you passed easily.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47a7df4d$0$84201
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
>
Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because CDMA is on
800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS? Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and
its range sucks just as bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2
miles unless there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.
GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead
zones.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
> Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because
> CDMA is on 800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?
Neither. GSM has a digital cliff at 35KM, handsets outside
that distance from the base are just ignored by the base.
> Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and its range sucks just as
> bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2 miles unless
> there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.
> GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain.
Because its got a high enough density that the 35KM digital cliff
doesnt matter because the bases are close than that anyway.
> But, that may be because Europe isn't afraid to
> buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead zones.
Nope, its because there is a higher density of bases than
you need with cdma because of the digital cliff that GSM has.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:21:31 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A3B43D3EBECnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47a7df4d$0$84201
>$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
>
>Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because CDMA is on
>800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?
Neither. Steven tries to claim that 800 MHz propagates better than 1900
MHz, but that simply isn't true in general. All he's really got to go
on is the timing limit of standard GSM, 35 km (or about 22 miles).
That's actually not a significant issue in practice, because real world
range is typically limited by low handset power and line of sight
issues, and that limit can be overcome with extended range (multi time
slot) GSM.
>Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and
>its range sucks just as bad as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2
>miles unless there are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.
The issue for Sprint in this area (and perhaps your area) is number of
towers, not frequency. CDMA2000 has some issues, particularly with an
insufficient number of towers, notably cell breathing and pilot
pollution.
>GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
>because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead
>zones.
It's because GSM works as well or better than CDMA2000.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.
>> Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because
>> CDMA is on 800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?
> Neither. Steven tries to claim that 800 MHz propagates
> better than 1900 MHz, but that simply isn't true in general.
Wrong, as always, particularly outside the built up areas.
> All he's really got to go on is the timing limit
> of standard GSM, 35 km (or about 22 miles).
Wrong again, there is a clear difference between
those bands propagation and building penetration wise.
> That's actually not a significant issue in practice, because real world
> range is typically limited by low handset power and line of sight issues,
Pigs arse it is, particularly outside built up areas where the base spacing
that GSM needs isnt as economic as with cdma, particularly with car kits.
> and that limit can be overcome with extended range (multi time slot) GSM.
Wrong again, it just doubles it, doesnt eliminate it and there are other
real downsides with that approach that sees it not used much at all.
>> Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and its range sucks just as bad
>> as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2 miles unless there
>> are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.
> The issue for Sprint in this area (and perhaps your area) is number of
> towers, not frequency. CDMA2000 has some issues, particularly with
> an insufficient number of towers, notably cell breathing and pilot pollution.
>> GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
>> because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead zones.
> It's because GSM works as well or better than CDMA2000.
Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
In article <slrnfqfeuc.4e.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>On 2008-02-04, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>> I do find it ironic, however, that the carrier with "The Network" is the
>> only nationwide carrier without accurate street-level coverage maps ontheir
>> website. (They've recently added "street-level" maps, but they are still
>> "yes/no" coverage maps with no attempt to discern between strong, moderate,
>> weak, etc. like the other carriers do.)
>
>Would you call Sprint's maps "street-level coverage"? My house is in
>a coverage seam where all the carriers are crap. This shows up clearly
>as a several square block area of weak coverage on the T-Mobile and
>AT&T maps that I'm in the middle of, but on the Sprint map the whole
>city has excellent coverage (and Verizon says the whole county is covered).
I remember a moment where I was in a building close to 37th and Walnut
in Philadelphia, and I was making a delivery, and I had lousy cellphone
connection to the recipient. She had Verizon and I had Cingular (now
AT&T).
Her cellphone had "signal strength" indication at lowest level above
none at all, and mine had "signal strength indication" one level below
the top indication - at her desk!
Her cellphone worked so poorly there that I barely made out her
suite/room number with requested repetition of the info due to bigtime
signal dropouts, and the phone call dropped without me hanging up.
37th and Walnut in Philadelphia is pretty much smack in the middle of
"University City". The location where I found good Cingular (now AT&T)
coverage and lousy Verizon coverage is about 450-500 feet from the center
of the intersection of 38th and Walnut, and both streets there are big
busy ones that are "state highways" with route numbers.
That location is in a zip code with 4 hospitals, 2 of which are
"teaching hospitals" that have universities associated with them. And I
was not counting the university-associated veterinary one there!
"America's First Research Park" is a cluster of office buildings
centered roughly 1/4 mile from where I found Cingular/AT&T to be good and
Verizon to outright rot. Quite a few thousand people work there!
I would think that Verizon would have their customer's phones working
well in Philadelphia's "University City"!
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
At 04 Feb 2008 18:11:24 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
> >> Cingular/AT&T.
> >
> > On what planet?
>
> Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area),
> and Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes,
> and thus with extremely low margins of error.
Following your advice, I did. ;-)
None of the surveys I found references to online addressed coverage
_specifically_ (other than the "Consumer Checkbook" you referenced in a
later post.)
For example, the only Yankee Group survey I could find that put VZW on top
of anything was a four year-old survey of what carrier most business people
used:
(Verizon was tops at 22% over Nextel at 20% and AT&T at 16%...
In 2003...
When ATTWS and Cingular were still separate companies and VZW was the
largest carrier.) Yes, Verizon "won" but it wasn't about network coverage
or quality. Applying the Yankee Group criteria (most consumers) to food
would arguably make McDonald's the "best" restaurant in the US.
J.D. Powers rated Verizon's network with the best "call quality" (not
coverage- they didn't rank that) in 2003 and 2006. The 2003 survey ranked
Nextel in 2nd place. Nextel? I've listened to 70-year old 78-RPM records
cleaned with steel wool that sound clearer than a Nextel phone call. That
strains any credibilty that survey has in my mind! ;-)
J.D. Powers has also ranked Verizon highest in customer satisfaction more
recently, but that doesn't necessarily equate to "best coverage,"
particularly since they were tied with T-Mobile, who has never been accused
of having the best coverage... <cue spooky music> ...UNTIL NOW! (see
below!) ;-)
> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in
> three others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
Do the CR surveys rank coverage seperately? I haven't seen this January's,
but my recollection of earlier years' surveys was that "coverage" was
included in a soft of "call problems" category which included a variety of
reception problems, like no signal
static, dropped calls, can't hear other party, etc.
While I didn't read t
is year's yet, I found this quote from in it RCR Wireless News: 'T-Mobile's
service was "on par with Verizon in most of the metro areas we
surveyed..."'
T-Mo "on par with Verizon?" Still vouching for CR's survey's "coverage
cred?" ;-)
> Even when Verizon and AT&T turn off their AMPS networks, rural
> carriers have indicated that they will leave their AMPS networks
> in place for the foreseeable future.
Which will be great for whatever fraction of VZW's customers can utilize
it. As Smartphones and Multimedia phones continue to increase in
popularity, the percentage of VZW customers with analog capability dwindles
(unfortunately.)
> I always bring along a phone on Cingular/AT&T when I travel, just to test
> the differences.
You keep an _active_ AT&T phone just to compare it's coverage vs. the
carrier you already use and are already convinced of the superiority of?
That's pretty geeky, and almost as incredible as Nextel ranking second
in call quality in a survey! (Although, admittedly, I used to drive around
with a pre-IRDB Nokia 5120 in field test mode to compare signal strength
of the 800MHz carriers!) ;-)
> Last year, in Oregon, far north California, the Sierra Nevada, and
> Canada, the advantage of CDMA and AMPS was significant. In many cases
> it was roaming onto other CDMA networks, and occasionally AMPS, but
> in most cases it was native coverage. In short, all the surveys
> and tests were confirmed.
My very unscientific anecdotal "tests" confirm Verizon's slight coverage
edge as well- whenever I'm anywhere where my phone doesn't get a signal
(increasingly rare these days), I look around to see who does. Very rarely
do I see a Verizon user staring at his display and cursing lack of signal.
(But it has happened in my experience. In fact, my suburban Denver
neighborhood had no Verizon or AT&T coverage when I moved here four years
ago- I had to loan my realtor my T-Mobile phone to call her office when she
showed us my house the first time. At the time, the only carriers that
worked here were Sprint/Qwest [Qwest is a Sprint MVNO here in Colorado], T-
Mo and Nextel! My neighborhood certainly challenged my long-held belief in
800-MHz superiority!)
Last weekend my only "no signal" observation was with Nextel in Breckenridge.
(Reminding me again how greatly T-Mo has improved over the last four years-
I brought my PagePlus "backup phone" with me but never even tuened it on.
When I first moved to Colorado, I relied on my Beyond Wireless TDMA phones
whenever I left the Denver metro!) A Nextel-wielding couple seemed
surprised they couldn't get a signal at the edge of town. Frankly, any
Nextel users that travel often should only be that surprised when they CAN
get a signal! ;-)
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:11:02 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote in <60q9f8F1qs9iuU1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>>never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>
> I'm pleased to inform you that you're earned a coveted place in my twit
> filter. It's a difficult honor -- your posts have to be pretty much
> devoid of any real content -- but you passed easily.
>
Now, only if John would add himself to his twit filter ... in location #1 and
the alt.cellular.attws group would be free of his REPEATED posting of the
alt.cellular.cingular charter to it.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
In alt.cellular.attws RBM <rbm@noemail.com> wrote:
>
> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
> I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
> didn't drop with another
>
Talking to empty air is a real bitch. Especially when one person can hear you
and you can't hear them or the reverse happens. A common occurance with GSM
and very rare indeed with CDMA. I have experience with T-Mobile, Sprint and
Verizon post-paid to back this up and AT&T pre-paid ... GSM simply does this a
lot compared to other technologies.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable
>>> consumer resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably
>>> HATE it. -Dave
>>
>>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. ...
>
> I don't even hold a candle to you in that department, Steven.
>
Nice post edit Navas. Why did you cut his text?
He actually wrote:
"As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
newsgroups!)."
You don't like the truth about your spamming? And you certainly didn't like
the fact that I emailed you a legitimate complaint.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
The way you test coverage is by testing coverage, not by
surveying cell phone end users.
As should be obvious from this thread, the perceptions of end
users vary wildly and certainly can't be relied upon for
something like this.
People tend to either like their service provider or hate it.
If they like it, they will "forget" about service issues
they've experienced when surveyed on the quality of service,
and if they hate it, they will exaggerate them. This is
simple human nature.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Rod Speed wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.
>
>> "Extended range" GSM overcomes that.
>
> Nope, it just changes the distance at which the digital cliff cuts in and
> has other significant downsides, which is why it isnt used much at all.
Ummm....I think you missed my sarcasm there. Navas has repeatedly
insisted he experienced "extended GSM" (extended in the sense of
extended range, not in the industry definition sense of extended
frequency range).
His proof consisted of, "I experienced it and therefore it happened" and
"I spoke with an engineer friend and he said it was certainly possible."
He has consistently failed to provide credible professional links that
any U.S. carrier has deployed extended (range) GSM.
Consumer Reports reliability (was: Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT)
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
>as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
>newsgroups!).
I've regretted just about every time I trusted CR about
something. It eventually got so bad that I canceled my
subscription because it simply wasn't worth the money.
They recommended a digital camera; I bought it and it was
crap. They recommended a particular toaster and claimed that
it could produce multiple batches of decent toast in quick
succession; I bought it and discovered that not only was the
second batch of toast awful, the first was almost as bad.
They recommended Cambridge Soundworks speakers; I tried them
and discovered they were tinny and weren't anywhere near the
quality of the Kef speakers I ended up buying.
To give them credit, they warned me that the 1995 Ford Taurus
had a bad reliability record before I bought a used one, and
we ended up spending thousands of dollars in repairs that
wouldn't have been necessary on a decent car, and I used
their new-car pricing service to get a good price on a Honda
Odyssey.
In short, I've found that their auto data is pretty good, but
all of their other reviews and ratings are extremely
unreliable.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws RBM <rbm@noemail.com> wrote:
>> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
>> I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
>> didn't drop with another
>>
>
> Talking to empty air is a real bitch. Especially when one person can hear you
> and you can't hear them or the reverse happens. A common occurance with GSM
> and very rare indeed with CDMA. I have experience with T-Mobile, Sprint and
> Verizon post-paid to back this up and AT&T pre-paid ... GSM simply does this a
> lot compared to other technologies.
I've used GSM in other countries, and it's nothing like GSM in the U.S..
The fault does not lie with the technology, it's possible to deploy
GSM in a way that you do not have those problems, it just hasn't been
done yet.
The U.S. presents more deployment problems for GSM than for CDMA because
of the vast open spaces, and suburbs where residents fight towers, which
is a less common problem in western Europe and Asia. A good comparison
is Australia, where they used CDMA to replace GSM in the outback. Then
they wanted to swap CDMA 2000 for another type of CDMA, and it's been
delayed because of deployment and coverage issues.
In my area, SF Bay Area, one reason the 800 MHz CDMA coverage is so much
better than GSM coverage is because of the topography, and the green
belt. A CDMA tower on the edge of the greenbelt provides coverage much
further into the "tower-free" zones. Similarly, a tower's on the edges
of the urban part of suburbs extend coverage further into the suburbs
where zoning doesn't allow towers. This has been an ongoing issue where
I live, where the residents complain about AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile,
then turn around and prevent towers in their back yards.
Re: Consumer Reports reliability (was: Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT)
"Jonathan Kamens" <jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote in message
news:fo9sc3$4i6$2@jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
>>as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
>>newsgroups!).
>
> I've regretted just about every time I trusted CR about
> something. It eventually got so bad that I canceled my
> subscription because it simply wasn't worth the money.
>
> They recommended a digital camera; I bought it and it was
> crap. They recommended a particular toaster and claimed that
> it could produce multiple batches of decent toast in quick
> succession; I bought it and discovered that not only was the
> second batch of toast awful, the first was almost as bad.
> They recommended Cambridge Soundworks speakers; I tried them
> and discovered they were tinny and weren't anywhere near the
> quality of the Kef speakers I ended up buying.
Snip
Yup. Every CR I've read, there is usually a product in there that I own
(and love) and CR hates it. On the other hand, I've been shocked by some CR
recommended items that I know (from experience) are pure crapola.
As I've stated before, CR is a great consumer reference. If CR hates it, I
know I'm probably gonna love it. -Dave
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>> others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
>
> The way you test coverage is by testing coverage, not by
> surveying cell phone end users.
This is true.
Did you see the news story where they accompanied the Verizon testing
van? They tested all major networks for comparison. There was never any
allegation by any other carrier, or by the news media, that the tests
were somehow skewed. The one pseudo-complaint was that the van did not
test in-building coverage, but since most of Verizon is at 800 MHz, the
indoor coverage would have been equal to, or better (comparatively) than
the outdoor results.
No other carrier ever tried to dispute the results. Sprint claims to
have "the most powerful network," and T-Mobile concentrates on having
good customer service and the most peak minutes at a price point, but
neither claims to have the most coverage. Cingular briefly tried to
counter the Verizon campaign with their short-lived "fewest dropped
calls," ad campaign, but dropped it after lawsuits challenged the claim,
and even the company they hired to do the survey disputed Cingular's
advertising claims. Even if the claim had been true, in order to have a
dropped call you first have to be able to place or receive a call! Now
AT&T has switched to the intentionally more vague claim of "More Bars in
More Places."
> As should be obvious from this thread, the perceptions of end
> users vary wildly and certainly can't be relied upon for
> something like this.
They're not a double-blind test, but don't read less into them than they
really mean. Remember, the surveys of users are test of coverage by
default. I.e., the Checkbook survey included surveys of coverage while
traveling and local coverage. There is no reason to believe that one
carrier's customers would claim coverage where none exists or claim no
coverage where it does exist, any more than another carrier's customers
would claim this (Navas excepted). These are huge samples in statistical
terms, and false perceptions would cancel out.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT 
