|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > August 2007 > Re: Hey Navas....
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Ness_net wrote:
> AT&T Ditches 'Fewest Dropped Calls' Ad Campaign
>
> http://blog.wired.com/business/2007...itches-few.html
>
> "Turns out, the assertion was never really true, and was based on
> only a small part of a larger Telephia report. As a whole, the report notes
> that AT&T Wireless did not have the most reliable network in places like
> New York, Chicago, Houston and Los Angeles, according to Broadband
> Reports. Recent studies from Consumer Reports and JD Power mirror
> these findings, and have placed Cingular/AT&T at or near the bottom
> of their rankings for reliability and satisfaction.
"Update 8/23: An AT&T spokesman says that dropping the "fewest dropped
calls" language is just part of an overall shift to a new message: "More
bars in more places." Okay then!"
Who can argue with more bars in more places, as long as they have
Guinness on tap?"
Maybe it's because I tend to travel more to out-of-the-way places during
the summer months, but this summer I seemed to be in more places where
AT&T/Cingular had no coverage and Verizon did have coverage than ever.
This includes sections of the California coast near Big Sur, big chunks
of southern Oregon, and part of Lafayette on the north side of 24. Most
of this was digital coverage, though there was still some AMPS.
| |
| John Navas 2007-08-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:53:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46ce9c29$0$27161$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Maybe it's because I tend to travel more to out-of-the-way places during
>the summer months, but this summer I seemed to be in more places where
>AT&T/Cingular had no coverage and Verizon did have coverage than ever.
>This includes sections of the California coast near Big Sur, big chunks
>of southern Oregon, and part of Lafayette on the north side of 24. Most
>of this was digital coverage, though there was still some AMPS.
Maybe it's because you have an axe to grind against GSM in general and
AT&T in particular, to the point where you make up stuff to bash them.
In fact coverage by AT&T is as good or better than Verizon in Northern
California, as I've repeatedly shown in rebuttals to your prior
bashings.
(I can't speak to coverage in Oregon, but I'd hazard a guess that you're
off the mark there as well.)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-08-27, 4:33 am |
| "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:5fa4d3lla1h14b5
u5dpgjnf63jmgespm8d@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:53:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 46ce9c29$0$27161$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Maybe it's because you have an axe to grind against GSM in general and
> AT&T in particular, to the point where you make up stuff to bash them.
>
> In fact coverage by AT&T is as good or better than Verizon in Northern
> California, as I've repeatedly shown in rebuttals to your prior
> bashings.
>
> (I can't speak to coverage in Oregon, but I'd hazard a guess that you're
> off the mark there as well.)
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
Grow up
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> And yet every indepedent survey done in the last three years fail to back
> you up.
And of course he has never shown any of the evidence that he claims to
have shown, only his own personal assertions, and since he's proven
himself to be less than honest over the years no one puts much credence
in those assertions.
This weekend I was up at the Chesbrough Boy Scout Camp off of Highway 9
and Skyline (35)). It's a way's down from the road, and I didn't expect
to have coverage, but in most of the facility I could get enough digital
signal on Verizon to make a call, when outside, though on one occasion
the call dropped and I had to make it again.
For the poor AT&T wireless users there was one place high in the camp
where they could stand and if they held the phone high over their head
and turned on the speakerphone then they could get enough signal to make
a call on some of the handsets. Quite amusing to watch.
The AT&T map shows "Moderate" coverage in that area. The Verizon map
just shows "Digital Coverage"
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
>
> And yet every indepedent survey done in the last three years fail to back
> you up.
Note that for southern Oregon coverage I provided links to maps provided
by Cingular/AT&T that even showed the difference in coverage.
Here are those maps again:
http://i14.tinypic.com/4yaf89h.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/67ex5x5.jpg
Of course, maybe there was extended GSM coverage that isn't available to
GSM subscribers other than Navas, LOL.
| |
| Cubit 2007-08-27, 12:33 pm |
| My parents visited Dana Point last week and their AT&T phones didn't
function. Their new Verizon phones are shipping Fedex today. I added them
to my account Friday, and we plan to split the bill 3 ways....
My brother lives on a golf course in La Quinta, California, and Verizon
seems to be the only carrier that works. Cingular was dead.
The TDMA switch forced on AT&T customers was total bullshit. They used the
transition to cram customers into new higher rate plans (at least they did
for us).
I was in an AT&T store Friday and was surprised to find lots of customers.
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:5fa4d3lla1h14b5
u5dpgjnf63jmgespm8d@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:53:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 46ce9c29$0$27161$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Maybe it's because you have an axe to grind against GSM in general and
> AT&T in particular, to the point where you make up stuff to bash them.
>
> In fact coverage by AT&T is as good or better than Verizon in Northern
> California, as I've repeatedly shown in rebuttals to your prior
> bashings.
>
> (I can't speak to coverage in Oregon, but I'd hazard a guess that you're
> off the mark there as well.)
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Cubit wrote:
> My parents visited Dana Point last week and their AT&T phones didn't
> function. Their new Verizon phones are shipping Fedex today. I added them
> to my account Friday, and we plan to split the bill 3 ways....
>
> My brother lives on a golf course in La Quinta, California, and Verizon
> seems to be the only carrier that works. Cingular was dead.
>
> The TDMA switch forced on AT&T customers was total bullshit. They used the
> transition to cram customers into new higher rate plans (at least they did
> for us).
<snip>
Part of the problem with the switch from TDMA was the loss of AMPS.
Aside from a couple of handsets that supported GSM and AMPS (and TDMA
for that matter), the loss of AMPS resulted in a great deal of lost
coverage in fringe areas, even areas that were in semi-rural parts of
cities. But even when AMPS is gone, the fact is that CDMA has greater
range than GSM, so you'll still never get as good coverage with GSM
unless they put in a _lot_ more sites and in many areas sites aren't
permitted.
For example, in the east Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area, GSM coverage
has never been too good outside the core city. I was up in Lafayette
three weeks ago, in the far upper left of this map,
"http://i16.tinypic.com/4oqixyu.jpg". The people had just finished a big
new house there, and I noticed two new Verizon phones, when I knew that
this couple had always been on Cingular. He said that Verizon was the
only carrier with any coverage up there (and he really wanted an
iPhone!--too bad). The AT&T map shows "moderate" coverage, but it seems
like "moderate" is a synonym for "no coverage." The Verizon map shows
"Digital Coverage."
When I was helping plan the scout family camp that we had this past
weekend in the Santa Cruz mountains, we did alert people that there
might not be cellular service available. Turns out that Verizon worked
acceptably well (not perfect), while AT&T worked barely at all. While we
didn't really want people gabbing on their phones during the weekend, we
did have to have some latecomers bring up some items. One guy had a new
tent from Big 5 and when he opened it on Friday night at 8:00 p.m. there
was just a rain-fly and half the poles. He was able to call Big 5, and
high-tail it back down to Sunnyvale where they stayed open for him, and
did the exchange for a complete tent. You never know when you're going
to benefit from having coverage!
That's the situation all over the Bay Area, you can get decent AT&T
coverage in most of the urban and suburban areas, but go outside to the
rural and semi-rural areas, and you're usually out of luck on AT&T. I
think that's why AT&T has always come out so poorly in all the tests and
surveys, a lot of people around here _like_ to leave the urban areas for
recreation, and while it may be unreasonable to expect wireless
coverage, the GSM users see a lot of people being able to make calls
where they can't.
What's really dishonest is what some of the wireless store employees say
to unknowing customers regarding coverage. It usually goes something
like "no carrier has 100% coverage." They try to make it a binary choice
between 100% coverage and less than 100% coverage, when in reality there
are vast differences in coverage quality, as shown by all the
independent surveys.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-08-27, 10:33 pm |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46d2efd7$0$2724
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> And of course he has never shown any of the evidence that he claims to
> have shown, only his own personal assertions, and since he's proven
> himself to be less than honest over the years no one puts much credence in
> those assertions.
>
> This weekend I was up at the Chesbrough Boy Scout Camp off of Highway 9
> and Skyline (35)). It's a way's down from the road, and I didn't expect to
> have coverage, but in most of the facility I could get enough digital
> signal on Verizon to make a call, when outside, though on one occasion the
> call dropped and I had to make it again.
>
> For the poor AT&T wireless users there was one place high in the camp
> where they could stand and if they held the phone high over their head and
> turned on the speakerphone then they could get enough signal to make a
> call on some of the handsets. Quite amusing to watch.
>
> The AT&T map shows "Moderate" coverage in that area. The Verizon map just
> shows "Digital Coverage"
Those maps are total BS
My area shows the best signal. But what was funny the AT&T guy was over
fixing lines in my the back yard. And he had to take a walk to call his
supervisor to get a part that he did not have in his truck. I figured he
would just use his line phone, but that's why he was there fixing it. I saw
a note on my front door telling me my line was down for repair.
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-08-27, 10:33 pm |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46d2f0a5$0$2724
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> Note that for southern Oregon coverage I provided links to maps provided
> by Cingular/AT&T that even showed the difference in coverage.
>
> Here are those maps again:
>
> http://i14.tinypic.com/4yaf89h.jpg
> http://i17.tinypic.com/67ex5x5.jpg
>
> Of course, maybe there was extended GSM coverage that isn't available to
> GSM subscribers other than Navas, LOL.
Navas quote! = Grow up. :)
| |
|
| In article <QQLAi.7007$924.2965@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46d2f0a5$0$2724
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>
> Navas quote! = Grow up. :)
Better is the other non sequitur, "Wrong on all counts".
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Tinman 2007-08-28, 12:33 pm |
| "Kurt" wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
> Better is the other non sequitur, "Wrong on all counts".
He seems to cycle through, "rubbish," "in fact <insert bullshit here>,"
"grow up," "get a life," and the ever popular "Google is your friend."
--
Mike
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> "Kurt" wrote:
>
> He seems to cycle through, "rubbish," "in fact <insert bullshit here>,"
> "grow up," "get a life," and the ever popular "Google is your friend."
Don't forget to add: "Nonsense," "Good Scramble," "Nope," and "Not
True," to the list of playground replies and insults when he's backed
into a corner.
Here is the list I can recall:
Good Scramble
Grow up
Grow up and get a life
Nonsense
Nope
Not True
Rubbish
Wrong on all counts
| |
| Jim Dubya 2007-08-30, 12:33 pm |
| Actually,
Sprint should work fine. Sprint and Verizon have the best service in
Southern California. I live in Laguna Niguel and in my neighborhood, Verizon
doesn't provide a usable signal and even dropped me as a customer after
investigating the signal strength at my Laguna Niguel home. On the other
hand, Sprint provides full signal at my home. Verizon also doesn't work at
my office of Faraday Ave in Carlsbad California and again Sprint provides
full signal.
There is no single cell phone provider that is "the best". The best service
depends on where you live, work, play, and travel, For some it will be
Verizon, for others it will be Sprint, Cingular, or T-Mobile.
"Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote in message
news:uqCAi.21568$eY.10241@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> My parents visited Dana Point last week and their AT&T phones didn't
> function. Their new Verizon phones are shipping Fedex today. I added
> them to my account Friday, and we plan to split the bill 3 ways....
>
> My brother lives on a golf course in La Quinta, California, and Verizon
> seems to be the only carrier that works. Cingular was dead.
>
> The TDMA switch forced on AT&T customers was total bullshit. They used
> the transition to cram customers into new higher rate plans (at least they
> did for us).
>
> I was in an AT&T store Friday and was surprised to find lots of customers.
>
>
> "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:5fa4d3lla1h14b5
u5dpgjnf63jmgespm8d@
4ax.com...
>
>
| |
| Jim Dubya 2007-08-30, 12:33 pm |
| Navas is like Rodney Dangerfield. He gets no respect and doesn't deserve
any!!
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46d45146$0$2722
9$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Tinman wrote:
>
> Don't forget to add: "Nonsense," "Good Scramble," "Nope," and "Not True,"
> to the list of playground replies and insults when he's backed into a
> corner.
>
> Here is the list I can recall:
>
> Good Scramble
> Grow up
> Grow up and get a life
> Nonsense
> Nope
> Not True
> Rubbish
> Wrong on all counts
| |
| Jim Dubya 2007-08-31, 4:33 am |
| Todd,
You figured it out. Being a Trekkie and a regular at attending Star Trek
Conventions, I have seen that parallel universe episode several times. SW is
a Klingon that is making war with Navis and SW will win because even the
Klingons can out-wit Navas. :-)
BTW, I think that I saw Navas at a Star Trek Convention dressed as a
Tribble!
"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:jPEBi.7277$Vv.4612@fe117.usenetserver.com...
> At 30 Aug 2007 10:29:49 -0700 Jim Dubya wrote:
>
> in
>
>
> I've figured it out! Mij/Dubya is the Star Trek "Mirror Universe"
> version of John Navas... He posts from a parallel universe exactly
> like our own, except there, Leonard Nimoy has a beard, and Navas/Mij
> has Sprint instead of AT&T! ;-)
>
>
> --
>
> "I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
> or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
> all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
> ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
>
>
| |
| John Navas 2007-08-31, 4:33 am |
|
Actually Klingon. Better get your shields up! :)
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:38:10 -0700, "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com>
wrote in <TWMBi.85850$Mu5.70791@newsfe15.phx>:
[color=darkred]
>Todd,
>
>You figured it out. Being a Trekkie and a regular at attending Star Trek
>Conventions, I have seen that parallel universe episode several times. SW is
>a Klingon that is making war with Navis and SW will win because even the
>Klingons can out-wit Navas. :-)
>
>BTW, I think that I saw Navas at a Star Trek Convention dressed as a
>Tribble!
>
>"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
>news:jPEBi.7277$Vv.4612@fe117.usenetserver.com...
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jim Dubya 2007-08-31, 3:33 pm |
| A Klingon around Ur-Anus!
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:to8fd31hq6fq8lp
jh4pa3p21o7orve04vl@
4ax.com...
>
> Actually Klingon. Better get your shields up! :)
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:38:10 -0700, "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com>
> wrote in <TWMBi.85850$Mu5.70791@newsfe15.phx>:
>
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jim Dubya 2007-08-31, 3:33 pm |
| A Klingon around Ur-Anus!
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:to8fd31hq6fq8lp
jh4pa3p21o7orve04vl@
4ax.com...
>
> Actually Klingon. Better get your shields up! :)
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:38:10 -0700, "Jim Dubya" <jimdubya@nospam.com>
> wrote in <TWMBi.85850$Mu5.70791@newsfe15.phx>:
>
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|