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
The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:19:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But Verizon tends to
>> stay above this level of weaseling in its ads.
>
> And somewhere in Charleston, Larry's head just exploded. ;-)
LOL, no, I'm serious. It always seems to be AT&T grasping at straws in
their ads. They seem to have a less clever ad agency than Verizon.
Of course Verizon benefits greatly from all the independent surveys that
show their service to be superior to other carriers. You can't buy that
kind of publicity, you have to earn it. AT&T and Sprint have to work
against the results of all the independent surveys that show their
service to be inferior. "More Bars in More Places" ads showing the lack
of CDMA coverage somewhere in Europe where the hostelers miss out on a
great party because they don't have AT&T is about the best they can do.
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
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4a983fd9$0$1677
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:19:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But Verizon tends to
>>> stay above this level of weaseling in its ads.
>>
>> And somewhere in Charleston, Larry's head just exploded. ;-)
>
> LOL, no, I'm serious. It always seems to be AT&T grasping at straws in
> their ads. They seem to have a less clever ad agency than Verizon.
>
> Of course Verizon benefits greatly from all the independent surveys that
> show their service to be superior to other carriers. You can't buy that
> kind of publicity, you have to earn it. AT&T and Sprint have to work
> against the results of all the independent surveys that show their
> service to be inferior. "More Bars in More Places" ads showing the lack
> of CDMA coverage somewhere in Europe where the hostelers miss out on a
> great party because they don't have AT&T is about the best they can do.
>
Really? (The links are copied from Sprint website out of convenience)
"Overall, wireless customer care performance has improved considerably as
customers report shorter hold times and improved rates of problem
resolution on the first contact, the customer satisfaction survey company
said in a news release Thursday.
What it didn’t point out was that nearly all of the improvement came from
Sprint. The industry average is up, from 723 six months ago to 735 now. But
the leaders Alltel, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless are tied at 747 on the
survey’s 1,000-point scale averaged nearly 750 just six months ago."
Verizon is doing nothing to innovate. With capacity problems and a growing
perception of ineptness, their ability to tout #1 for much longer could be
in doubt.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> It always seems to be AT&T grasping at straws in their ads. They
> seem to have a less clever ad agency than Verizon.
The best is T-Mobile, would you rather have VZW's Paul Marcarelli
asking "Can you hear me now?" or Alltel's Chad Brokaw telling you about
"My Circle" or T-Mo's Catherine Zeta Jones giving you a "mobile
makeover?" Dang, that even sounds sexy!
T-Mo wins hands down! Too bad they had to pay her so much they
couldn't afford to build any towers.... <sigh>
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4a983fd9$0$1677
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:19:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But Verizon tends to
>>> stay above this level of weaseling in its ads.
>>
>> And somewhere in Charleston, Larry's head just exploded. ;-)
>
> LOL, no, I'm serious. It always seems to be AT&T grasping at straws in
> their ads. They seem to have a less clever ad agency than Verizon.
>
How does using the same schtik over and over again constitute "clever" in
the context you are using it?
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
XS11E wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It always seems to be AT&T grasping at straws in their ads. They
>> seem to have a less clever ad agency than Verizon.
>
> The best is T-Mobile, would you rather have VZW's Paul Marcarelli
> asking "Can you hear me now?" or Alltel's Chad Brokaw telling you about
> "My Circle" or T-Mo's Catherine Zeta Jones giving you a "mobile
> makeover?" Dang, that even sounds sexy!
>
> T-Mo wins hands down! Too bad they had to pay her so much they
> couldn't afford to build any towers.... <sigh>
They recently put in a tower near me. T-Mobile and Sprint will always be
at a technological disadvantage in suburban and rural areas where the
need for more 4x the number of 1900 MHz PCS towers makes it uneconomical
to provide coverage equivalent to what the 800 MHz carriers are able to
provide.
Re: Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:4a9872f0$0$1647$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> XS11E wrote:
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It always seems to be AT&T grasping at straws in their ads. They
>>> seem to have a less clever ad agency than Verizon.
>>
>> The best is T-Mobile, would you rather have VZW's Paul Marcarelli
>> asking "Can you hear me now?" or Alltel's Chad Brokaw telling you
>> about "My Circle" or T-Mo's Catherine Zeta Jones giving you a
>> "mobile makeover?" Dang, that even sounds sexy!
>>
>> T-Mo wins hands down! Too bad they had to pay her so much they
>> couldn't afford to build any towers.... <sigh>
>
> They recently put in a tower near me. T-Mobile and Sprint will always
> be at a technological disadvantage in suburban and rural areas where
> the need for more 4x the number of 1900 MHz PCS towers makes it
> uneconomical to provide coverage equivalent to what the 800 MHz
> carriers are able to provide.
>
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* :-) .
Wireless Call Quality, Verizon tops Ratings Again 
p.uzeo3bcfo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net:
Linear Mode
