Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again

#31 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 06:16 AM

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!

#32 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 07:52 AM

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.

#33 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 12:48 PM

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!

#34 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 04:17 PM

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.

#35 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 05:14 PM

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.

--
Paul Miner

#36 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 09:53 PM

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.)

You're almost as bad as the iPhone fanbois.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

#37 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 10:31 PM

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:yNwmm.187693
$FP2.53704@newsfe05.iad:

> Unfortunately for us (and, I'm guessing, the other poster) there's no
> cheaper plan to downgrade to that still offers "Fave" numbers.
>
>

$39.95/mo....All numbers are "Fave" numbers on unlimited plans....

http://www.pagepluscellular.com/Plan...0n%20Text.aspx

--
Larry

#38 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 02:14 AM

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> I don't think ANY of the providers offer a 30 minute/month plan!

You can get PagePlus service for about $2.50 a month and that would
include about 17 minutes per month. More minutes are 6-12 cents each
depending on how many you buy at at time.

Just put my mom on PagePlus after AT&T misled her about bundled service
of DirecTV, landline, DSL, and cell service and was charging her
$40/month for cell phone service that she used for about 30 minutes a month.

#39 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 02:15 AM

Steve Sobol wrote:
> 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.)

As was my earlier statement, you just didn't get it.

> You're almost as bad as the iPhone fanbois.

Except they are serious.

#40 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 02:42 AM

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:12:07 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

;-)

-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

#41 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 02:46 AM

In article <4a9b23cc$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
scharf.steven@geemail.com says...

> > Thank you for speaking for me. (That was sarcasm, BTW.)
>
> As was my earlier statement, you just didn't get it.

No, YOU don't get it. You don't realize how you sound.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

#42 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 02:51 AM

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:46:22 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>In article <4a9b23cc$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>
>
>> > Thank you for speaking for me. (That was sarcasm, BTW.)
>>
>> As was my earlier statement, you just didn't get it.
>
>No, YOU don't get it. You don't realize how you sound.

Hmm, he sounded serious to me, too. I must be among the sarcasm
challenged.

--
Paul Miner

#43 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 03:28 AM

tlvp wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:12:07 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> ;-)

At least you got the sarcasm!

#44 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 07:48 PM

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:28:29 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> tlvp wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:12:07 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> ;-)
>
> At least you got the sarcasm!
>

;-}

-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

#45 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 07:50 PM

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4a9b23cc$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>> In article <4a9a09dc$0$1586$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>> You're almost as bad as the iPhone fanbois.
>
> Except they are serious.

VRY SRS. ;P

#46 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 07:51 PM

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4a9b3504$0$1591$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> tlvp wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:12:07 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> ;-)
>
> At least you got the sarcasm!

Twas good stuff. I find it hilarious when people get all worked up when
they can't read sarcasm. =P

#47 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 09:58 PM

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:13:33 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
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>

ATT provides the best call quality on iPhones.

Those other provide no signal, let alone call quality.

#48 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 11:10 PM

In article <bbeo959caon4bumrq1iq99jsf1p0megvfk@4ax.com>,
ron.clifford@peoplepc.com says...
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:13:33 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> 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>
>
>
> ATT provides the best call quality on iPhones.
>
> Those other provide no signal, let alone call quality.

Duh, Alltel and Verizon are CDMA carriers and the AT&T iPhone is a GSM
phone. OF COURSE you're not going to get a signal on an iPhone if you're
on Alltel's or Verizon's network.

Of course, you already know that the JD Power survey is about general
call quality, not "call quality on iPhones."

Oops, caught you in a lie again!

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

#49 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 12:04 AM

Ron wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:13:33 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> 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>
>
>
> ATT provides the best call quality on iPhones.
>
> Those other provide no signal, let alone call quality.

You can use an iPhone on T-Mobile.

#50 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 12:13 AM

At 31 Aug 2009 15:58:50 -0500 Ron wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:13:33 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> 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>
>
>
> ATT provides the best call quality on iPhones.
>
> Those other provide no signal, let alone call quality.

Gee, I'd better call my wife and tell her the iPhone she's been using on T-
Mobile since last November doesn't work...

(Ironically, she roamed on Alltel with the iPhone just a few weeks ago,
leaving Verizon as the only J.D. Power "Best in the West" carrier her
iPhone hasn't used!)

#51 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 02:21 AM

"Ron" <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:bbeo959caon4bumrq1iq99jsf1p0megvfk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:13:33 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> 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>
>
>
> ATT provides the best call quality on iPhones.
>
> Those other provide no signal, let alone call quality.

Uh oh. You are gonna stir up the Sprint Appologists with this one...

#52 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 02:53 AM

In article <4a9c56a7$0$1633$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
scharf.steven@geemail.com says...

> > Those other provide no signal, let alone call quality.
>
> You can use an iPhone on T-Mobile.

Ron's a troll and an AT&T shill. There's very little point in trying to
reason with him.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

#53 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 02:54 AM

In article <bPYmm.187271$ZN.25191@newsfe23.iad>,
elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...

>
>
> Gee, I'd better call my wife and tell her the iPhone she's been using on T-
> Mobile since last November doesn't work...
>
> (Ironically, she roamed on Alltel with the iPhone just a few weeks ago,
> leaving Verizon as the only J.D. Power "Best in the West" carrier her
> iPhone hasn't used!)

OK, I'll concede Alltel to you since they obviously still have GSM
roaming, however an Alltel or Verizon customer wouldn't be able to use
the phone at all. (But you knew that. :>)

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

#54 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 03:10 AM

At 31 Aug 2009 18:54:48 -0700 Steve Sobol wrote:
> elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says..
> >
> >
> > Gee, I'd better call my wife and tell her the iPhone she's been using
> > on T-Mobile since last November doesn't work...
> >
> > (Ironically, she roamed on Alltel with the iPhone just a few weeks ago,
> > leaving Verizon as the only J.D. Power "Best in the West" carrier her
> > iPhone hasn't used!)
>
> OK, I'll concede Alltel to you since they obviously still have GSM
> roaming, however an Alltel or Verizon customer wouldn't be able to use
> the phone at all. (But you knew that. :>)

Yeah, I just couldn't resist the opportunity to take a jab at Phillipe!

#55 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 03:30 AM

Todd Allcock wrote:

> (Ironically, she roamed on Alltel with the iPhone just a few weeks ago,
> leaving Verizon as the only J.D. Power "Best in the West" carrier her
> iPhone hasn't used!)

Reminds me of a few years ago when I was in the Everglades, roaming onto
Cingular or AT&T on my Verizon CDMA phone, while Cingular and AT&T
customers had no coverage at all. Since in Florida AT&T and Cingular
each had the 800 MHz spectrum, they operated the AMPS networks. There
was no digital coverage at all where I was in the Everglades. Of course
now there's no coverage at all in the place I previously had AMPS
coverage, because of the Republicans. Such is progress.

#56 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 03:54 AM

SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> (Ironically, she roamed on Alltel with the iPhone just a few weeks ago,
>> leaving Verizon as the only J.D. Power "Best in the West" carrier her
>> iPhone hasn't used!)
>
> Reminds me of a few years ago when I was in the Everglades, roaming onto
> Cingular or AT&T on my Verizon CDMA phone, while Cingular and AT&T
> customers had no coverage at all. Since in Florida AT&T and Cingular
> each had the 800 MHz spectrum, they operated the AMPS networks. There
> was no digital coverage at all where I was in the Everglades. Of course
> now there's no coverage at all in the place I previously had AMPS
> coverage, because of the Republicans. Such is progress.

The government was not at fault. They didn't require anyone to shut
down any AMPS system. What they did was to ALLOW the carriers to shut
down AMPS and this was long after digital had more or less conquered the
world. Yes, this caused a few very thinly populated areas to lose some
coverage. Sorry about that.

Some people have solved the problem for themselves and their nearest
neighbors by installing cell phone repeaters. Some, it seems, would
rather complain!

#57 (**permalink**) 09-01-2009, 03:14 PM

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> The government was not at fault. They didn't require anyone to shut
> down any AMPS system. What they did was to ALLOW the carriers to shut
> down AMPS and this was long after digital had more or less conquered the
> world. Yes, this caused a few very thinly populated areas to lose some
> coverage.

Nope. They were allowed to shut down AMPS only if doing so would result
in no loss of coverage--if the previous AMPS area was now completely
covered by digital. The government did not make any effort to enforce
this clause. In my own area we lost vast amounts of coverage in county,
state, and national parks, along the coast, and up on ridges when AMPS
was turned off.

The carriers might argue that they never actually intended to cover many
of the areas that were covered by AMPS, and that those areas just
happened to have coverage because of the much longer range of an AMPS tower.

#58 (**permalink**) 09-12-2009, 05:37 AM

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)"

All I know is I get better connect now that Verizon has taken over for
Alltel in my home deadzone.

#59 (**permalink**) 09-30-2009, 07:51 PM

In article <bbeo959caon4bumrq1iq99jsf1p0megvfk@4ax.com>,
Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> ATT provides the best call quality on iPhones.

Yes, but it's SBC (not really AT&T, you know). Even if they were
giving away free ponies with their contracts, it'd still be SBC,
and I still wouldn't have them on a bet.

>
> Those other provide no signal, let alone call quality.

But what they *do* provide is not being SBC.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com