|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > December 2006 > Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service
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]
| Author |
Re: Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service
|
|
| Todd Allcock 2006-12-06, 4:33 am |
| At 05 Dec 2006 17:00:50 -0800 SMS wrote:
> While it's not surprising that Verizon ranked first in 14 out of 20
> areas, and second in the rest, I'm surprised that T-Mobile beat them in
> three cities. No doubt T-Mobile's policy of discouraging new sign-ups
> for
> people with no coverage at their home and work locations plays a part in
> their good ratings.
I think you're being a little unfair- T-Mo isn't the new kid on the
block anymore- they've matured and have built out an excellent network in
a number of cities. Like Sprint, they've focused on covering population
rather than geography, and have used roaming agreements to fill in the
gaps.
Here in southwest Denver, T-Mo (and Sprint) hit places Cingular (and
sometimes Verizon) don't.
T-Mo's been around for a good number of years now and have invested a lot
in their network. It's a little disingenuous to say that their rating
was based on discouraging customers that have no coverage at home or work!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Robert Coe 2006-12-06, 7:33 am |
| On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:04:31 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
: At 05 Dec 2006 17:00:50 -0800 SMS wrote:
:
: > While it's not surprising that Verizon ranked first in 14 out of 20
: > areas, and second in the rest, I'm surprised that T-Mobile beat them in
: > three cities. No doubt T-Mobile's policy of discouraging new sign-ups
: > for people with no coverage at their home and work locations plays a
: > part in their good ratings.
:
:
: I think you're being a little unfair- T-Mo isn't the new kid on the
: block anymore- they've matured and have built out an excellent network in
: a number of cities. Like Sprint, they've focused on covering population
: rather than geography, and have used roaming agreements to fill in the
: gaps.
:
: Here in southwest Denver, T-Mo (and Sprint) hit places Cingular (and
: sometimes Verizon) don't.
:
: T-Mo's been around for a good number of years now and have invested a lot
: in their network. It's a little disingenuous to say that their rating
: was based on discouraging customers that have no coverage at home or work!
I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
carriers should emulate.
Bob
| |
|
| Robert Coe wrote:
> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
> carriers should emulate.
Yes, that's what I intended. However I should also point out that out in
the western region, T-Mobile is different than the old Voicestream that
people back east are used to. Originally, T-Mobile did a swap with
Cingular, where Cingular let T-Mobile use their 1900 MHz western
network, and T-Mobile let Cingular use their 1900 MHz NY network. The
1900 MHz GSM network out west was particularly bad (I had it for a
year), and it still isn't the greatest. When Cingular took over AT&T
Wireless, T-Mobile got the Cingular 1900 MHz network. Because Cingular,
formerly Pacific Bell Wireless was so late to the party, they had too
problems, first they couldn't put towers in all the prime locations that
AT&T and Verizon had towers, and second they were stuck at the less
desirable 1900 MHz, which is big disadvantage in terms of coverage.
Voicestream had a much longer history, and had good coverage in much of
the country.
I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.
It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
Cingular, and far below Verizon.
| |
| Double Tap 2006-12-06, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:457779d3$0$8253
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
> Yes, that's what I intended. However I should also point out that out in
> the western region, T-Mobile is different than the old Voicestream that
> people back east are used to. Originally, T-Mobile did a swap with
> Cingular, where Cingular let T-Mobile use their 1900 MHz western network,
> and T-Mobile let Cingular use their 1900 MHz NY network. The 1900 MHz GSM
> network out west was particularly bad (I had it for a year), and it still
> isn't the greatest. When Cingular took over AT&T Wireless, T-Mobile got
> the Cingular 1900 MHz network. Because Cingular, formerly Pacific Bell
> Wireless was so late to the party, they had too problems, first they
> couldn't put towers in all the prime locations that AT&T and Verizon had
> towers, and second they were stuck at the less desirable 1900 MHz, which
> is big disadvantage in terms of coverage. Voicestream had a much longer
> history, and had good coverage in much of the country.
>
> I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
> least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
> service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
> potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
> discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
> in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
> non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.
>
> It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
> network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
> Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
> especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
> than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
> Cingular, and far below Verizon.
I live in NYC and was with T-Mobile since the days it was Omni Point and was
relatively happy with my service.
Granted the old Verizon service that my wife had at that time was better in
many respects than O-P/VoiceStream.
However for the past 2-3 years my T-Mobile service was in my opinion
excellent.
I just switched to Cingular 2 months ago and I am very happy with the
service. I have not had any dropped calls and only 2 calls going into voice
mail after one or two rings. I find the customer service just as good as
T-Mobile which I consider to be excellent.
The only reason I switched to Cingular was because I was very frustrated by
a lack of coverage in Virginia when I go to visit relatives that live there.
I loved the fact the T-Mobile always gave me the unlock code for any phone
that I owned so I could use local SIM cards when I traveled overseas which
was quite often.
So far after only 2 months I would rate Cingular a the equal to T-Mobile
Double Tap
| |
|
| Double Tap wrote:
> The only reason I switched to Cingular was because I was very frustrated by
> a lack of coverage in Virginia when I go to visit relatives that live there.
> I loved the fact the T-Mobile always gave me the unlock code for any phone
> that I owned so I could use local SIM cards when I traveled overseas which
> was quite often.
>
> So far after only 2 months I would rate Cingular a the equal to T-Mobile
AT&T Wireless had big capacity problems in NYC, which Cingular inherited
when they acquired them. Fortunately these problems seem to have been
solved. I was in NYC earlier this year, in Cingular was fine. I was also
in Washington DC where Verizon is still much, much better than Cingular,
with one of the major advantages being coverage in the metro.
| |
| John Navas 2006-12-07, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:17:59 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 457779d3$0$82538$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
>Yes, that's what I intended. However I should also point out that out in
>the western region, T-Mobile is different than the old Voicestream that
>people back east are used to. Originally, T-Mobile did a swap with
>Cingular, where Cingular let T-Mobile use their 1900 MHz western
>network, and T-Mobile let Cingular use their 1900 MHz NY network.
Actually a joint venture.
>The
>1900 MHz GSM network out west was particularly bad (I had it for a
>year), and it still isn't the greatest.
Actually quite good.
>When Cingular took over AT&T
>Wireless, T-Mobile got the Cingular 1900 MHz network.
Actually a sale to T-Mobile by Cingular, with a purchase base of network
use by Cingular subscribers.
>Because Cingular,
>formerly Pacific Bell Wireless was so late to the party, they had too
>problems, first they couldn't put towers in all the prime locations that
>AT&T and Verizon had towers, and second they were stuck at the less
>desirable 1900 MHz, which is big disadvantage in terms of coverage.
Actually no real disadvantage.
>I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
>least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
>service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
>potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
>discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
>in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
>non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.
>
>It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
>network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
>Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
>especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
>than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
>Cingular, and far below Verizon.
That T-Mobile did so well with less coverage than Cingular, given
network sharing agreements, actually shows the survey to be unreliable.
Cingular actually has the best coverage in the Bay Area. T-Mobile
isn't bad either. Sprint and Verizon are demonstrably worse in a number
of areas, including significant parts of the East Bay.
Take your Verizon advocacy to a more appropriate forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.
2. Studies of carriers, including those he purports to cite, actually
show small differences between carriers (not a "wide margin" as Steven
claims) that are often within the margin of error. For example, recent
JD Powers ratings of major carrier call quality ranged from only +/-2%
to only +/-5% in its six regions.
3. Results for Cingular and Sprint-Nextel are patently distorted by
combining dissimilar technologies and networks (e.g., TDMA/D-AMPS + old
GSM + new GSM; CDMA + iDEN). This is roughly like claiming the average
person has one breast.
4. CU surveys can't be validly generalized because they are a
self-selected sample of a non-representative universe (CR subscribers).
(Usenet of course has a similar problem.)
5. Results showing T-Mobile with better network performance than
Cingular in the West are patently nonsensical, given that Cingular uses
the same network as T-Mobile (the old Cingular "orange" network), plus
the extensive ATTWS ("blue" network).
6. Verizon doesn't have coverage in some of the areas Steven claims;
e.g., large sections of Skyline Blvd, and nearby sections of Page Mill
Road and Big Basin Way.
7. All carriers have coverage holes. There is no one best carrier in
all areas, as Steven claims. I've previously identified some areas
where Cingular coverage is better than Verizon coverage; e.g.,
waterfront parts of Corte Madera.
8. Steven's claim that 1900 MHz takes "4x to 5x" the number of towers as
compared to 800/850 MHz is patently absurd.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-07, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0c
vuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.
can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
here or elsewhere?
| |
| John Navas 2006-12-07, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:19:04 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
<jgkeegan-99E5E6. 18190407122006@indiv
idual.net>:
>In article < 3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0c
vuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
>here or elsewhere?
Search my prior posts with Google.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-07, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 4f8hn2p2jpsdgrcfg4nu
10hp67lfv3f8ja@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:19:04 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-99E5E6. 18190407122006@indiv
idual.net>:
>
>
> Search my prior posts with Google.
i'll take that to mean you have none and that you made up your
allegation.
that was kind of clear, anyway.
| |
| John Navas 2006-12-07, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:25:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
<jgkeegan-81C6B0. 18252907122006@indiv
idual.net>:
>In article < 4f8hn2p2jpsdgrcfg4nu
10hp67lfv3f8ja@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>i'll take that to mean you have none and that you made up your
>allegation.
You are of course free to take it however you want, no matter how
unfounded and silly. Even without Google, my prior post contained ample
evidence of misstatements by Steven that can be verified easily, as you
know.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-07, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 4u8hn21gtsct6g1dk6t9
8h26c60b8jigqe@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:25:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-81C6B0. 18252907122006@indiv
idual.net>:
>
>
> You are of course free to take it however you want
even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
considered false claims.
i expect most readers took your claim as false from the beginning.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-12-08, 7:33 am |
| In alt.cellular.t-mobile james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> considered false claims.
>
They are not considered false, they are considered unsupported.
> i expect most readers took your claim as false from the beginning.
I doubt that.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
|
| james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> considered false claims.
Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
and changed his ways.
| |
| Bert Hyman 2006-12-08, 10:33 am |
| jgkeegan@gmail.com (james g. keegan jr.) wrote in
news:jgkeegan-AC55C6. 18560007122006@indiv
idual.net:
> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> considered false claims.
Generally, they're simply considered unsupported, at least at first.
If the claimant refuses to support his assertions, that likely will
change.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
| |
| John Navas 2006-12-08, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 457988fb$0$82601$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>
>Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
>do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
>someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
>often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
>he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
>community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
>history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
>and changed his ways.
'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-12-08, 12:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>
You begin to stutter ... that must explain why you can't quit posting the
alt.cellular.cingular charter to the wrong newsgroup [alt.cellular.attws].
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-12-08, 3:33 pm |
| I don't believe that there is anymore attws as it was purchased by Cingular.
Is that correct Tommy T?
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eSheh.3450$Yy1.3298@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> You begin to stutter ... that must explain why you can't quit posting the
> alt.cellular.cingular charter to the wrong newsgroup [alt.cellular.attws].
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
>
>
| |
|
| This piece of shit anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the XXXX? All anus navas does is to copy
and paste. Take a look at some of the shit that he recommend :
http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
ugly SOB has a photo on this link > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
blew loads on her face.
In article < be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhi
kk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 457988fb$0$82601$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
| |
|
| What the heck you need to dangle navas' gonad everywhere you fart? If
you prefer to suck navas' cock, please keep it to yourself.
In article <sDjeh.134533$4Z1.87943@newsfe09.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
> I don't believe that there is anymore attws as it was purchased by Cingular.
> Is that correct Tommy T?
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eSheh.3450$Yy1.3298@textfe.usenetserver.com...
>
>
| |
|
| james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article < 3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0c
vuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
> here or elsewhere?
I have no grudge against any carrier.
A long time ago (around 1999 or 2000), I signed up for Pacific Bell
Wireless, then when my wife changed offices, she had no coverage in the
(her office is at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in Silicon
Valley), and we had no coverage in our house, also in the heart of
Silicon Valley.
I wasn't angry, and Cingular (Pacific Bell Wireless morphed into
Cingular) freely admitted that their coverage was not as good as AT&T
Wireless or Verizon Wireless, and explained why (hoping that we'd wait
out their network build-out. When our contracts ended, we changed
carriers. No hard feelings. I didn't demand that they let me out of my
contracts, or that they rush out and build more towers.
As to GSM, the whole reason I went with Cingular in the first place was
because I wanted GSM due to frequent travels to Taiwan and China, which
at the time had no CDMA networks. A lot of co-workers also went the
Cingular route, and ended up with fine service in Asia, but poor service
in the U.S..
I now have several GSM phones, and service on an MVNO that uses
Cingular's network. Coverage is much improved since 2000, but still not
nearly as good as Verizon coverage. Basically my experience mirrors what
Consumer Reports, JD Power, Yankee Group, and Bay Area Consumer
Checkbook all report. Contrast this to what Navas posts, which _never_
has any references or corroboration. Then decide who to believe.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-12-08, 10:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular Mij Adyaw <mij@thebitbucket.com> wrote:
> I don't believe that there is anymore attws as it was purchased by Cingular.
> Is that correct Tommy T?
>
It is irrellavent whether Cingular is affiliated with AT&T Wireless or not.
He is posting a newsgroup charter for one group into a different group.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 4579e8a7$0$82591$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> I have no grudge against any carrier.
>
> A long time ago (around 1999 or 2000), I signed up for Pacific Bell
> Wireless, then when my wife changed offices, she had no coverage in the
> (her office is at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in Silicon
> Valley), and we had no coverage in our house, also in the heart of
> Silicon Valley.
>
> I wasn't angry, and Cingular (Pacific Bell Wireless morphed into
> Cingular) freely admitted that their coverage was not as good as AT&T
> Wireless or Verizon Wireless, and explained why (hoping that we'd wait
> out their network build-out. When our contracts ended, we changed
> carriers. No hard feelings. I didn't demand that they let me out of my
> contracts, or that they rush out and build more towers.
>
> As to GSM, the whole reason I went with Cingular in the first place was
> because I wanted GSM due to frequent travels to Taiwan and China, which
> at the time had no CDMA networks. A lot of co-workers also went the
> Cingular route, and ended up with fine service in Asia, but poor service
> in the U.S..
>
> I now have several GSM phones, and service on an MVNO that uses
> Cingular's network. Coverage is much improved since 2000, but still not
> nearly as good as Verizon coverage. Basically my experience mirrors what
> Consumer Reports, JD Power, Yankee Group, and Bay Area Consumer
> Checkbook all report. Contrast this to what Navas posts, which _never_
> has any references or corroboration. Then decide who to believe.
i knew who to believe in this case from the beginning. that is why i
asked john for evidence that i knew would not be forthcoming.
a man with character would have apologized. has john done that yet?
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article < Xns9893641262F6Veebl
eFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> jgkeegan@gmail.com (james g. keegan jr.) wrote in
> news:jgkeegan-AC55C6. 18560007122006@indiv
idual.net:
>
>
> Generally, they're simply considered unsupported, at least at first.
>
> If the claimant refuses to support his assertions, that likely will
> change.
i was 99.999999999% certain that john would not support his claim
when i asked that he do so.
he has not done so.
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article < be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhi
kk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 457988fb$0$82601$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
which is what you did, john, and provided no evidence to support your
claim.
worse yet, you lacked the character to withdraw it and apologize.
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article <GKdeh.3430$Yy1.1664@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> They are not considered false, they are considered unsupported.
>
>
> I doubt that.
you apparently are new to usenet.
the claims remain unsupported.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-12-09, 4:33 am |
| If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr Navas
has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW should
points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please specify
the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
"sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-9564AA.15320408122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...[color=darkred]
> This piece of shit anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
> all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the XXXX? All anus navas does is to copy
> and paste. Take a look at some of the shit that he recommend :
> http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
> ugly SOB has a photo on this link >
> http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
> That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
> blew loads on her face.
>
> In article < be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhi
kk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
| |
|
| Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
informative.
In article <Bnseh.104856$JA.62075@newsfe11.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> If you check out the link that you posted below, you will see that Mr Navas
> has written some very interesting and informative articles. Mr SW should
> points us to a url where we evaluate his technical prowess. Please specify
> the URL and spare us your ugly mugshot. :-)
>
> "sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-9564AA.15320408122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-12-09, 4:33 am |
| Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
rather than posting technical information that may be informative to other
members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and start
posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)
"sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-020E3D.00320509122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...[color=darkred]
> Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
> dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
> informative.
>
> In article <Bnseh.104856$JA.62075@newsfe11.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2006-12-09, 4:33 am |
| On 2006-12-07, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:17:59 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 457779d3$0$82538$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
> That T-Mobile did so well with less coverage than Cingular, given
> network sharing agreements, actually shows the survey to be unreliable.
I don't think so, you should look at the actual results of the survey.
T-Mobile and Cingular both had problems in the bay area, but different
problems. T-Mobile's problem was, in fact, its coverage. Cingular's
coverage wasn't negatively rated, instead its problem was blocked calls,
i.e. capacity. This is not inconsistent with their sharing a network,
and actually agrees with my experience (getting a Cingular circuit
in Los Gatos near the highway during evening rush hour is often hit
and miss, for example. Making a T-Mobile call at this same location
used to be hit-and-miss, but that changed when the network changed
hands).
Note that in the survey Cingular's most consistent problem just about
everywhere in the country was blocked calls. The only other carrier of
the 5 listed to have this problem anywhere was T-Mobile, though less
frequently. I'm not sure it is a coincidence that the two GSM carriers
in the survey had this problem while the three CDMA carriers didn't; the
(perhaps sole) advantage of a CDMA network is that you get more
capacity from a given amount of deployed RF infrastructure.
> Cingular actually has the best coverage in the Bay Area. T-Mobile
> isn't bad either. Sprint and Verizon are demonstrably worse in a number
> of areas, including significant parts of the East Bay.
?? T-Mobile had poor coverage in the SF bay area when I was their customer,
and according to the survey has poor coverage still.
> 4. CU surveys can't be validly generalized because they are a
> self-selected sample of a non-representative universe (CR subscribers).
> (Usenet of course has a similar problem.)
This is sort of true, though you are over-stating it. The CU survey
may in fact represent the general case well, this just can't be
proven statistically because of the non-random participant selection.
> 5. Results showing T-Mobile with better network performance than
> Cingular in the West are patently nonsensical, given that Cingular uses
> the same network as T-Mobile (the old Cingular "orange" network), plus
> the extensive ATTWS ("blue" network).
No. They didn't find T-Mobile better than Cingular in the west, and they
did find that T-Mobile had inferior coverage to Cingular. Cingular had
other problems.
> 6. Verizon doesn't have coverage in some of the areas Steven claims;
> e.g., large sections of Skyline Blvd, and nearby sections of Page Mill
> Road and Big Basin Way.
You know, I ride a bicycle up Page Mill road, then north on Skyline
Blvd, then down La Honda Road, quite frequently when the weather is
good. I carry both a Cingular and a Verizon phone (I am unfortunately
inseparably attached to them), and have them both set to beep when their
service changes. The Cingular phone beeps a fair bit more than the
Verizon phone does, and does so even though the Cingular phone is
more prone to lie and say it has service when in fact you can't use it.
I don't think I disagree with you about Big Basin Way and the west side
of the hill in general, however. My Verizon phone sometimes sees analog
stuff over there when neither phone has digital service, but I've seldom
been able to actually use it to make a call.
> 8. Steven's claim that 1900 MHz takes "4x to 5x" the number of towers as
> compared to 800/850 MHz is patently absurd.
I agree with you about this, though I wouldn't call it "absurd" since
I understand how one could arrive at this conclusion. I just don't
think it is correct.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| And what exactly did you contribute to the group? Mij, you don't even
know which phone to choose for your Sprint services a few weeks ago. All
you ever do is proping up navas' gonad. You are the loser that try to
convince everyone that navas is the creator AKA the god of cingular
newsgroup and thus he shall have every right to impose his idiotic
charter on att. Both you and navas are morons. This can be reflected
from general concensus. Let me make it clear to you, navas does not own
any group and he often copy and paste without understanding the
argumentative statement. When he is wrong which is almost weekly, he
gets away with his idiotic acts because of XXXXXXX like you. Frankly,
you are not very objective just like your other half -> anus navas.
In article <wBteh.22207$xM4.19258@newsfe07.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
> Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
> garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
> rather than posting technical information that may be informative to other
> members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and start
> posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
> benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
> ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)
>
>
> "sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-020E3D.00320509122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...
>
>
| |
| Andy Smallwood 2006-12-09, 10:33 am |
| According to Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM>:
> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
> carriers should emulate.
Verizon does that also. I asked about their coverage for Indian Lake NY.
The Verizon rep said that he did not recommend using Verizon there
(even tho Verizon does have extended analog coverage there).
| |
|
| Andy Smallwood wrote:
> According to Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM>:
>
> Verizon does that also. I asked about their coverage for Indian Lake NY.
> The Verizon rep said that he did not recommend using Verizon there
> (even tho Verizon does have extended analog coverage there).
I think that the difference is that T-Mobile does this even in urban
areas. For example, a friend of mine lives in the Willow Glen area of
San Jose, which is not far from downtown San Jose. He was going to sign
his wife and himself up for T-Mobile, moving from Sprint. He went to the
Cupertino T-Mobile store on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road to
sign up. The salesperson checked coverage at his house and found that
there was poor coverage in that neighborhood (this is a neighborhood
that would NEVER allow a tower outside of the core commercial district
on Lincoln Avenue). So the salesperson told him not to get T-Mobile.
I don't believe that any other carrier would have even bothered to
check, believing that all of San Jose has good coverage. A colleague had
Sprint for seven years with no coverage at her home in Cupertino, and
finally switched to Cingular which did have coverage. Of course when she
bought the Sprint service, at Radio Shack, the last thing that the sales
person would have done would be to check coverage, if they even could do
it back then.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-12-09, 12:33 pm |
| Have you ever considered obtaining some remedial education? You writing
style is equivalent to the writing style of a below-average fifth grader.
You are also overly obsessed with gonads and other body parts and should
probably seek a psychiatrist. Please get some meds soon as you really need
some help. Be sure to tell your doctor about your gonad obsession and your
writing style. :-)
"sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-87C2D5.09595609122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...[color=darkred]
> And what exactly did you contribute to the group? Mij, you don't even
> know which phone to choose for your Sprint services a few weeks ago. All
> you ever do is proping up navas' gonad. You are the loser that try to
> convince everyone that navas is the creator AKA the god of cingular
> newsgroup and thus he shall have every right to impose his idiotic
> charter on att. Both you and navas are morons. This can be reflected
> from general concensus. Let me make it clear to you, navas does not own
> any group and he often copy and paste without understanding the
> argumentative statement. When he is wrong which is almost weekly, he
> gets away with his idiotic acts because of XXXXXXX like you. Frankly,
> you are not very objective just like your other half -> anus navas.
>
>
> In article <wBteh.22207$xM4.19258@newsfe07.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
>
| |
| Ness net 2006-12-09, 12:33 pm |
| Mij,
I have yet to see much of anything substantive from Navas myself.
To a noob, he (may) sound authoritative, but to anyone that actually
knows about RF, cellular and such, Navas' posts are filled with BS,
misinformation and extremely biased opinion - very little, if any facts.
And then there is the always snotty dismissal of any info that doesn't
agree with HIS (Cingular lockstep) opinion.
There are a few here that have actually WORKED in cellular and actually
know what they are talking about.
Navas certainly isn't one of them!
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote in message news:wBteh.22207$xM4.19258@newsfe07.phx...
> Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the garbage that you post. You devote your entire
> life to dissing Mr Navas rather than posting technical information that may be informative to other members of these
> newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and start posting useful information so that other members of this
> newsgroup can benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular, ATTWS, and GSM than you will
> ever know. :-)
>
>
>
| |
| Ness net 2006-12-09, 12:33 pm |
|
"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:slrnenl3c6.1bg.dcferguson@dennispc.local...
>
> I agree with you about this, though I wouldn't call it "absurd" since
> I understand how one could arrive at this conclusion. I just don't
> think it is correct.
>
4X to 5X may be a bit high, but the FACT that 1900Mhz DOES need a higher density
of sites over 800Mhz is simple and irrefutable physics.
This has been covered extensively here before and out in the real world, it is proven
to be the case, time and time again.
In Seattle a few years back, Motorola built a 1900Mhz system for GTE. But, it was designed
by a bunch of 800Mhz guys (alot of them came from the iDEN build). It ended up performing
very badly, because the site density wasn't sufficient to provide an adequate level of service.
(It was sold to Cingular and was their Seattle system until the AT&T merger, BTW)
And... it sucked!!
Then we have AT&T's 1900Mhz roll-out. Initially, another VERY poorly performing service in many
markets until additional sites were built to accommodate 1900Mhz's propagation characteristics.
I can cite case after case... but again it is a FACT 1900Mhz takes more sites, PERIOD.
| |
|
| Mij Asswipe,
Is attacking my writing style the best you can come up with? Let see,
you posted the following crap on Dec 3:
Ann Coulter is one of my favorite authors. More folks should become
acquainted with her writing.
On Dec 5, you posted another crap:
John,
Thanks for posting the charter of this group. It is really too bad that
some of the folks here do not understand the charter and don't realize
that you are the leader of both of these groups. In my opinion, when
these folks start contributing as much to this group as you have
contributed, then they can complain. Until then they should just keep
their mouths shut and let you lead the group.
Maybe you need to check into some mental health facility? Both you and
navas are living in denial.
article <WBBeh.108162$JA.70177@newsfe11.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
> Have you ever considered obtaining some remedial education? You writing
> style is equivalent to the writing style of a below-average fifth grader.
> You are also overly obsessed with gonads and other body parts and should
> probably seek a psychiatrist. Please get some meds soon as you really need
> some help. Be sure to tell your doctor about your gonad obsession and your
> writing style. :-)
>
>
> "sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-87C2D5.09595609122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...
>
>
| |
| John Richards 2006-12-09, 10:33 pm |
| Your obsessive preoccupation with genitalia and bodily
functions tends to discredit anything you post.
--
John Richards
"sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:nospam-020E3D.00320509122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...
> Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
> dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
> informative.
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article <wBteh.22207$xM4.19258@newsfe07.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
> Even if it is cut and paste,
you might want to google "top posting."
| |
|
| Ness net wrote:
> "Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:slrnenl3c6.1bg.dcferguson@dennispc.local...
>
>
> 4X to 5X may be a bit high, but the FACT that 1900Mhz DOES need a higher density
> of sites over 800Mhz is simple and irrefutable physics.
It's about 2X the distance for 800 MHz versus 1900 MHz, for the same
technology. If you're covering a linear space, such as a freeway, then
you can get by with 2x the number of towers. But if you're considering
the number of towers per square miles then 4x is about right.
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x 19 x 19 x
x x 8 x x x x x x x
x x x x x x 19 x 19 x
x x x x x x x x x x
Also remember than CDMA has greater range than GSM, no matter what the
frequency is, and that AMPS has even greater range.
> This has been covered extensively here before and out in the real world, it is proven
> to be the case, time and time again.
I don't think that anyone denies that 1900 MHz takes more towers, the
debate is over how many more it takes. In urban areas there are usually
more towers anyway, to increase capacity and break areas down into
smaller cells. It's in the suburbs and rural areas where you get the
biggest advantage from 800 MHz.
> In Seattle a few years back, Motorola built a 1900Mhz system for GTE. But, it was designed
> by a bunch of 800Mhz guys (alot of them came from the iDEN build). It ended up performing
> very badly, because the site density wasn't sufficient to provide an adequate level of service.
> (It was sold to Cingular and was their Seattle system until the AT&T merger, BTW)
> And... it sucked!!
This is similar to what happened with Cingular in California when they
started with their 1900 MHz system. T-Mobile is still struggling with
the old Cingular 1900 MHz network, fighting to install towers in areas
where residents don't want them.
> Then we have AT&T's 1900Mhz roll-out. Initially, another VERY poorly performing service in many
> markets until additional sites were built to accommodate 1900Mhz's propagation characteristics.
That was a very weird thing that AT&T Wireless did, and it led to the
problems that caused them to be acquired by Cingular.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-12-11, 4:33 am |
| That is very true. SW should seek psychological help for his Gonad
obsession. He also has an obsession with Mr Navas and stalks him here on
Usenet. Maybe if he could get a copy of his hero's autograph, he would go
away.
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:YFGeh.20895$9v5.682@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Your obsessive preoccupation with genitalia and bodily functions tends to
> discredit anything you post.
>
> --
> John Richards
>
>
> "sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-020E3D.00320509122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...
>
| |
| Jackzwick 2006-12-12, 7:33 am |
| In article < 457c540e$0$82603$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> That was a very weird thing that AT&T Wireless did, and it led to the
> problems that caused them to be acquired by Cingular.
Their totally bolixing up the switch from TDMA to GSM, their totally
bolixing up the switch to a new COmputer System, and their worst rated
Customer Service and highest Churn rate had something to do with it.
AT&T Wireless every quarter was reporting a net loss of customers at the
time they put themselves up for sale; and their stock was at half of its
IPO price.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-12-12, 10:33 am |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> you apparently are new to usenet.
>
Hardly.
> the claims remain unsupported.
That is EXACTLY what I just said. YOU said they were false by default, which
I completely disagree with.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-14, 3:33 pm |
| In article <zNyfh.3503$Yy1.1876@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hardly.
i was responding to your actions, not your actual longevity. you act
like a newbie.
>
>
> That is EXACTLY what I just said. YOU said they were false by default,
because they were unsuppported.
> which I completely disagree with.
you may accept unsupported allegations as fact. when i ask for claims
to be supported, and they are not, i conclude that the claims are
false.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-12-14, 3:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <zNyfh.3503$Yy1.1876@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> i was responding to your actions, not your actual longevity. you act
> like a newbie.
Why, because I don't prejudge unsupported suppositions as false?
>
> because they were unsuppported.
>
>
> you may accept unsupported allegations as fact. when i ask for claims
> to be supported, and they are not, i conclude that the claims are
> false.
You seem to read what you like. I don't accept unsupported allegations as
fact, and haven't once said that. I said I take unsupported allegations as
"unsupported". They are nothing more or less than that. Obviously, it
depends upon the author of those allegations as to whether you believe them to
be true or false, but that is an entirely different discussion.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-14, 3:33 pm |
| In article <1uhgh.3567$Yy1.1821@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why, because I don't prejudge unsupported suppositions as false?
there is no prejudging about it.
had you been in usenet newsgroups for any length of time, you would
have known that.
>
>
> You seem to read what you like. I don't accept unsupported allegations as
> fact, and haven't once said that. I said I take unsupported allegations as
> "unsupported". They are nothing more or less than that. Obviously, it
> depends upon the author of those allegations as to whether you believe them to
> be true or false, but that is an entirely different discussion.
the unsupported allegations i responded to remain unsupported.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-12-14, 3:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the unsupported allegations i responded to remain unsupported.
THAT IS WHAT IS SAID! You are the one that said if they are unsupported then
they are presumed to be false! That is an incorrect statement that YOU made
and now you back pedal?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-14, 3:33 pm |
| In article <E6igh.3573$Yy1.1626@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> THAT IS WHAT IS SAID!
when you spend a few more months in newsgroups, you'll learn about
typing in all uppercase, i hope.
> You are the one that said if they are unsupported then
> they are presumed to be false!
which is accurate
> That is an incorrect statement
that is why it was never supported, and why i told you it was false.
you seem to be struggling with concepts.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-12-14, 3:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <E6igh.3573$Yy1.1626@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> when you spend a few more months in newsgroups, you'll learn about
> typing in all uppercase, i hope.
>
Yes ... I was yelling at you. I know what I did. I also know that I have
fallen victim to a troll.
>
>
>
> which is accurate
>
>
>
> that is why it was never supported, and why i told you it was false.
> you seem to be struggling with concepts.
Alright ... you can claim an unsupported arguement means that it is false if
you like ... that is bound to further your cause [whatever that may be].
But as for you, you are clearly trolling now and I will not follow you
further.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-12-14, 10:33 pm |
| In article <2tigh.3574$Yy1.2863@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes ... I was yelling at you. I know what I did.
that's the first step towards recovery.
hang around a while; you'll catch on.
|
|
|
|
|