Verizon wireless - Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

Author

Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

John Navas

2007-02-11, 10:33 pm

Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).

For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...WREQUE
ST>

Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
of no coverage.

The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

--
Best regards,
John Navas

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2007-02-11, 10:33 pm

In article < pt4vs2leubcod0vpkvvf
0khd4qkg4m0715@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls)

And John Navas never trolls, does he.

Nice editorializing, there. Nice high road you've taken.

John Navas

2007-02-11, 10:33 pm

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:39:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cfd361$0$27239$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>Oh jeez, what did he say now? I kill-filed him to resist the temptation
>to reply, but you don't have to snip everything he wrote!
>
>I could easily list 20 places in the SF Bay Area where there is only
>AMPS coverage...

Except they don't exist according to Verizon.

>There's a reason why Verizon beat the other carries by a significant
>margin in the latest Consumer Reports survey. Part of it was due to
>their better digital network, but part was due to the AMPS coverage
>provided out of the urban core.

No evidence at all of that.

>It was huge sample size, and the results
>are indisputable.

On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
<http://www.amonline.com/article/art...tion=1&id=18130>

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

james g. keegan jr.

2007-02-11, 10:33 pm

In article < v8nvs2pj1bbhvnsm60p4
6baevp0amljbfg@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>
> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
> <http://www.amonline.com/article/art...tion=1&id=18130>

don't you wish you hadn't made a fool of yourself again by posting
this?

Todd Allcock

2007-02-12, 4:33 am

At 12 Feb 2007 03:27:43 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe.

> And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!

"Favorite coffee" is subjective. "Is my phone able to dial out at this
location?" isn't.

Besides, despite the fact that kajillions of folks like Starbucks, IMHO,
as a coffee drinker far longer than there ever was a Starbucks, Starbucks
coffee doesn't taste like coffee- it tastes like, well, "Starbucks."
There's nothing wrong with that if you like it, of course.

For those of us who enjoy a more traditional, and admittedly more plebian
"cuppa Joe," there are a bunch of coffees I prefer to Starbucks
(including McDonalds!) but the king of coffees remains Dunkin' Donuts, as
any self-respecting "Nor'easter" will attest to!

Steven J. Sobol

2007-02-12, 4:33 am

In article < S8idnQDxVe2OeVLYnZ2d
nUVZ_oninZ2d@giganew
s.com>, Notan wrote:

> Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
> It *does* taste burnt!

....which is the primary reason that I wouldn't drink their coffee for
many years. Obviously, as successful as the chain is, there are a lot
of people who like their beans burnt, but for quite some time, the
only drink I would buy at Starbucks is one that wasn't theirs (Tazo chai
tea latte).

Recently, however, I've relented and started drinking their white
chocolate mocha, which (due to the extra flavoring) isn't half bad.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Dean

2007-02-12, 4:33 am

DD is right up there (NY), but I actually like the "Green Mountain" at the
gas stations a little better.

As far as Starbucks - ecch. Gives me heartburn - every time. And I drink 6-8
cups of coffee a day. The rugrats behind the counter oughta stop smokin'
that rope too - LOL

Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They served
rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of (expensive imported)
potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...

"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:eqorsd$uju$1@ai
oe.org...
> At 12 Feb 2007 03:27:43 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>
> "Favorite coffee" is subjective. "Is my phone able to dial out at this
> location?" isn't.
>
> Besides, despite the fact that kajillions of folks like Starbucks, IMHO,
> as a coffee drinker far longer than there ever was a Starbucks, Starbucks
> coffee doesn't taste like coffee- it tastes like, well, "Starbucks."
> There's nothing wrong with that if you like it, of course.
>
> For those of us who enjoy a more traditional, and admittedly more plebian
> "cuppa Joe," there are a bunch of coffees I prefer to Starbucks
> (including McDonalds!) but the king of coffees remains Dunkin' Donuts, as
> any self-respecting "Nor'easter" will attest to!
>
>
>

clifto

2007-02-12, 4:33 am

SMS wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
>
> Definitely does taste burnt.

I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought so.

They do have a good coffeemaker descaler product, though.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

Anon E. Muss

2007-02-12, 4:33 am

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:25:42 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
>better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
>AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
>
>For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
><http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...WREQUE
ST>
>
>Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
>get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
>of no coverage.
>
>The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
>few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

As of 02/2007, AMPS coverage is a superset of digital cellular/PCS
coverage. IOW, there are no places that have digital cellular/PCS
voice but no AMPS service.

Sorry, that's just the facts.

John Navas

2007-02-12, 4:33 am

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:50:42 -0700, Notan < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed>
wrote in < S8idnQDxVe2OeVLYnZ2d
nUVZ_oninZ2d@giganew
s.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>
>Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
>
>It *does* taste burnt!

Some does; some doesn't -- depends on the varietal or blend. But it's
all better than McDonalds coffee as actually served at the average
franchise. Or haven't you actually tasted McDonalds coffee? ;)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Ness_net

2007-02-12, 4:33 am

John,

Let me get this right.

You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
As a definitive source of information?

Known for being so highly accurate.............

"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:pt4vs2leubcod0v
pkvvf0khd4qkg4m0715@
4ax.com...
> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
> better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
> AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
>
> For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...WREQUE
ST>
>
> Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
> get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
> of no coverage.
>
> The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
> few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas

Todd Allcock

2007-02-12, 4:33 am

At 11 Feb 2007 22:55:22 -0800 Ness_net wrote:
> John,
>
> Let me get this right.
>
> You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
> As a definitive source of information?
>
> Known for being so highly accurate.............

To be fair, I find the street-level detail maps of Cingular and T-Mobile
to be highly accurate. Verizon's on-line maps, however, don't have the
detail for me to match service holes in my area with the map, which makes
John's argument suffer based on the map's assertions alone.

Don Udel $ETC$

2007-02-12, 10:33 am

"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message > On the
contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!

And once again CR is right. IMHO, Starbucks does taste burnt and it's not a
very good value for the dollar. Given a choice between the two, I'd take
McDonalds every time for coffee.

Don

clifto

2007-02-12, 10:33 am

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:50:42 -0700, Notan wrote:
>
> Some does; some doesn't -- depends on the varietal or blend. But it's
> all better than McDonalds coffee as actually served at the average
> franchise. Or haven't you actually tasted McDonalds coffee? ;)

They never made a cup I'd ever call good, but there are thousands of
greasy-spoon diners that do worse, and all the McD coffee I've tasted
has been consistently better than any of the Starbucks I've had.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 am

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:48:11 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d08c3c$0$27255$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>In any case, the coffee article was vastly different than the cellular
>article. The coffee test was done by their staff. The cellular survey
>was based on nearly 50,000 respondents, which is a extremely large
>sample size with an extremely small margin of error, even when you
>divide by metro area, and divide again by carrier.

No matter how many times you make this claim, it still isn't true. CR
surveys suffer from self-selected samples of a non-representative
population, making the data interesting, but not truly applicable to the
universe of cellular subscribers. In addition, the sample size is
actually small when broken down by area, further increasing the amount
of error.

>The only real fault with the CR survey, and in reality it's a benefit,
>is that CR subscribers tend to be higher income individuals, with higher
>education levels, and are more liberal. Hence they are much more likely
>to travel, and even more likely to travel outside urban areas with their
>phones. This gives Verizon an advantage because their network is much
>more extensive than any of the other carriers.

This is, of course, a wishful claim with no real foundation.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 am

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:14:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d08463$0$27249$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>
>I think that is probably where Navas is confused. They will always show
>digital, if it exists. However a large number of the digital towers also
>have AMPS coverage, which will get you coverage for quite a ways into
>the surrounding open space.

Not according to Verizon.

>In fact they have to keeep AMPS on for now,
>since the emergency call boxes are still AMPS, despite plans by
>CalTrans to change them to CDMA.

AMPS for the public will almost certainly go away rapidly in a year no
matter what CalTrans (actually Caltrans) does.

>Also, Verizon has been reassuring corporate customers with field
>operations in the Bay Area that they won't reduce coverage, even when
>they are permitted to turn off AMPS. Either all the areas will be
>covered by digital, or they'll keep AMPS on until they are.
>Unfortunately this policy only applies to roads, not trails!

This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.

>What is unclear is if the reason that Verizon consistently is rated by
>independent organizations as having far better coverage than Cingular is
>due to AMPS or not. Other than stretches of 280 in San Mateo County,

It's actually good all along that section of 280 _if_ you have a decent
phone. You must still be using a very old phone.

>Cingular's GSM coverage has been improving. My benchmark location out in
>east Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita Road, finally got a tower a few
>months ago, and now has coverage. Cingular issues non-stop press
>releases about new towers they're installing, so they definitely are
>working on catching up with Verizon in terms of digital coverage.

Cingular actually has been well ahead of Verizon in this area for some
time now. I guess the difference has now become so large that you're
finally having to start acknowledging it.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Kurt

2007-02-12, 12:33 pm

In article <- 7ydnToCi6DPkk3YnZ2dn
UVZ_ruknZ2d@giganews
.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> Let me get this right.
>
> You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
> As a definitive source of information?
>
> Known for being so highly accurate.............
>
Yes, had to laugh at the "official" Cingular coverage map.
Just spent a week in the Sequoia national Forest and up the 178. No
reception anywhere outside of Three Rivers (down near Visalia). Ran into
an ATT truck at Giant Forest who said the only repeaters were down in
Three Rivers, and that the only recpetion one might get is if they can
get a clear shot of the valley below. I tried from many places - never
got a thing.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Larry

2007-02-12, 12:33 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45d081c8$0$2724
9
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> What's in it? I use vinegar, but it takes like eight runs of fresh water
> through the machine afterward to get rid of the vinegar smell.
>
>

Sulfamic Acid, H3NSO3. I buy "Kenmore Distiller Cleaner", cat number 42-
34543, from Sears in a 12 oz bottle of crystals. Works great on coffee
pots as well as my water distiller. It simply eats elemental calcium
depots off stainless steel or aluminum. DON'T GET ANY ON YOU or you'll be
sorry!

It's in the family with acids used as sweeteners, as you'll read from the
Wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfamic_acid

Larry
--
VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
NOONE will be spared!

Larry

2007-02-12, 12:33 pm

"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1.73@newsfe12.lga:

> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>
>

A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
http://www.chefmavro.com/
Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
Wakiki Beach....(c;

My friend in Atlanta calls Starbucks Fivebucks. We both agree it sucks.

Larry
--
VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
NOONE will be spared!

Tinman

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45d0b5aa$0$2716
5$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Notan wrote:
>
>
> Omig-d, I have a friend that just loves 7-11 coffee. There's one next to
> the Starbucks over near Google in Mountain View. She'll go into Starbucks
> to buy a scone, carrying her 7-11 coffee. I guess maybe I should stop
> teasing her, and try the 7-11 coffee. However she uses Sprint, so how good
> could her judgment be?

I don't think all 7-11 coffee is the same. Back east I liked it. Can't stand
it in the 7-11s out west. YMMV.

I'd take any of it, though, compared to the sludge sold at Starbucks if
ordering "just" coffee (which they don't seem to make).

--
Mike

Tinman

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

"Notan" < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed> wrote in message
news:1a2dneJN68isJU3
YnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@gi
ganews.com...
> Tinman wrote:
>
> I would think that 7-11's coffee would be pretty consistent from place to
> place,
> as it's prepackaged and all comes from the same manufacturer/distributor.
>
> Maybe not!

Without question it was (haven't compared it since 2003) noticeably
different. Even the coffee-area setups were different. Also, most 7-11s I
see out west are also gas stations. Most, if not all, of the 7-11s I used to
stop at back in NY are still stand-alone stores.

If I had to describe the stuff out in the western 7-11s it would be, in a
word, "weak." Not that the NY stuff was *anywhere* near Starbucks' level,
but it at least tasted like coffee and not tea. YMMV.

--
Mike

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:15:34 -0500, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
< Xns98D586E7F8185noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1.73@newsfe12.lga:
>
>
>A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
>Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
>in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
>http://www.chefmavro.com/
>Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
>Wakiki Beach....(c;

Lion is decent, but far from the best Kona coffee -- next time try Sugai
<http://www.sugaikonacoffee.com/>.

That said, Kona is a bit wimpy for my taste -- I'd much rather have a
good aged Sumatra, or organic East Timor, particularly as roasted by my
favorite coffee place, Pacific Bay Coffee in Walnut Creek, a genuine
micro-roastery. <http://www.pacificbaycoffee.com/> It's far superior
to Peet's or Starbucks, not to mention (yuk!) Mickey D, DD, or 7-11.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:41:35 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d0b4e2$0$27200$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>One of the biggest problems with Starbucks is that they mainly do very
>dark Italian or French roasts, rather than doing a medium roast, where
>you taste the coffee rather than "the burned." They've equated "strong"
>with "dark."

If you had any real experience with Starbucks you'd know that it also
has medium roasts, including some that are quite good, which can be
requested at many (but not all) locations.

Peet's also over-roasts some of its coffees.

On the other hand, both Peet's and Starbucks make full strength coffee,
rather than the weak stuff made by many coffee places, which some
undiscriminating people think is "burnt". Just ask to have it diluted
down to whatever strength you can handle.

>The owner of this company uses Cingular, so John can feel
>good about buying this coffee.

I rarely go to Starbucks, or for that matter any large chain (Peet's
included, not to mention the wretched "coffee" at Mickey D, DD, and
7-11), since I much prefer fresh micro-roasts like Pacific Bay Coffee in
Walnut Creek.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:31:47 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <no2Ah.783$x74.655@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

>John Navas wrote:

>
>Like Extended GSM, huh?

Not at all -- Extended Range GSM is real.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:07:38 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d0bafb$0$27201$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Notan wrote:
>
>
>I think that they grind it in the store now. 7-11's are franchises, so
>maybe if the store owner wants to sell good coffee he is allowed to do
>so. I see teachers and employees of the school my son goes to drinking
>7-11 coffee in the morning. Maybe it's actually okay.

Or maybe they don't know or don't care about the difference, like so
many people. I've get to get decent coffee in _any_ 7-11. YMMV.

>The prepaid phones sold at 7-11 do not support AMPS. They are on the
>Cingular GSM network.

Same old, same old vendetta. You must be upset by how well Cingular is
doing and how badly all your predictions have turned out.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:07:38 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d0bafb$0$27201$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>I think that they grind it in the store now. 7-11's are franchises,

Many are, but quite a few (thousands) are actually company-owned.

>so
>maybe if the store owner wants to sell good coffee he is allowed to do
>so. ...

Branding is actually carefully controlled.

You need to check your "facts".

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

clifto

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

SMS wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>
> What's in it? I use vinegar, but it takes like eight runs of fresh water
> through the machine afterward to get rid of the vinegar smell.

They don't seem to say. It's made by Urnex and it's three packets for $4.
Someone in alt.coffee recommended it to me with the caveat that I should
NOT use vinegar. (I'm convinced vinegar ruined my last coffeemaker by
etching a pinhole in the aluminum tubing surrounding the heater.)

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

clifto

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> On the other hand, both Peet's and Starbucks make full strength coffee,
> rather than the weak stuff made by many coffee places, which some
> undiscriminating people think is "burnt".

One of the nice things about working the Hispanofest in Melrose Park IL
was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
people who frequent places that make good coffee.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

clifto

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

SMS wrote:
> From "What is American Culture"
>
> "Burnt coffee at exorbitant prices. The most popular cafe chain, whose
> name decent people do not pronounce, burns its coffee beans to produce
> what Americans mistakenly believe is an authentic European taste. Proper
> coffee, by which of course I mean Italian coffee, is bittersweet, not
> burned.

There might be something to that. The great little coffee shop I mentioned
in a very recent article was Italian owned and operated.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:01:33 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d0b98e$0$27201$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

> From "What is American Culture"
>
>"Burnt coffee at exorbitant prices. The most popular cafe chain, whose
>name decent people do not pronounce, burns its coffee beans to produce
>what Americans mistakenly believe is an authentic European taste. Proper
>coffee, by which of course I mean Italian coffee, is bittersweet, not
>burned. Americans evidently hate the wretched stuff because they drown
>its flavor in a flood of milk, in the so-called "latte", something I
>never have observed an Italian request during many years of travel in
>that country. By contrast, Italians drink cappuccino, mixing a small
>amount of milk into the coffee and leaving a cap of foam. If Americans
>do not like it, why do they buy it at exorbitant prices? They do so
>precisely because the high price makes it a luxury, but an affordable
>one for secretaries and shopgirls."

Yet another urban legend. In fact Starbucks (like Peet's) succeeds by
giving people what they want, Americanized coffee-based drinks that most
people here much prefer to authentic Italian-style cappuccino. It's not
about coffee (except in the case of Peet's) -- it's about favorite
coffee-based drinks.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:09:23 -0700, Notan < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed>
wrote in < qsOdnf40c4L5Jk3YnZ2d
nUVZ_uninZ2d@giganew
s.com>:

>Tinman wrote:

>
>If you have the opportunity, try their "French Roast."

Been there; done that. Mediocre.

If you have the opportunity, compare a dark roast aged Sumatra at a good
micro-roastery.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:31:32 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
<ktr6a4-sd7.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>One of the nice things about working the Hispanofest in Melrose Park IL
>was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
>just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
>and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
>people who frequent places that make good coffee.

In your opinion. Opinions vary. And your insults only serve to
diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.

I consider myself a discriminating person; I do frequent places that
make excellent (not just good) coffee; and my own opinions are that
tastes vary, that Starbucks has quite different coffees, that some (not
all) Starbucks coffees are pretty good, and that what you're calling
"burnt" is just over-roasted to your particular taste.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:28:40 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d0bfe9$0$27210$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>That said, according to one article I read, McDonalds started using 100%
>Arabica beans about a year ago.

True, but Mickey D sources coffee in bulk from Kraft Foods, which gets
it from whatever countries are cheapo du jour, making 100% Arabica a
relatively meaningless distinction for Mickey D.

>If that's the case, they may really be
>better than Starbucks for regular coffee, since McDonald's sells a lot
>of regular coffee and makes it fresh every few minutes, while at
>Starbucks it can often sit around for an hour while customers buy
>lattes, and frappacinos (sp?).

One hour is nothing, and Mickey D coffee is only brewed regularly during
rush hours -- try it at 4 in the morning when it's been cooking for
hours (as I have).

>There's nothing special about the beans
>that Starbucks uses versus the coffee that McDonald's uses.

Actually there is. Starbucks deals in varietals and specific blends
that it buys direct. Not so Mickey D (as I noted above). What Mickey D
and Kraft do have are very big marketing budgets.

The CR coffee "review" was based on "trained tasters" (CR staffers)
visiting only "two stores of each company". It's sad to see how far CR
has fallen.

>Where CR is most useful is in their surveys of various sorts, such as
>vehicle reliability, and wireless coverage. They aren't asking people
>what they like best, they're asking people for their own experiences, so
>any bias is eliminated. They also use extremely large sample sizes which
>gives their surveys a very small margin of error.

CR surveys actually suffer from being self-selected samples of a
non-representative population, so they can't be validly generalized to
the universe of subscribers. And they actually have a relatively small
sample size when broken down by area, making the results essentially
meaningless.

>Some people complain that Consumer Reports subscribers aren't
>representative of the population at large, but in reality this cancels
>out when they do their surveys.

Statistics don't work that way.

>... For many of the metro areas in
>the last survey, including the San Francisco Bay Area, the differences
>between the carriers were quite large. In some areas they were not very
>large.

In fact the differences were relatively small, probably well within the
margin of error, although there's really no way of knowing that given
the flawed methodology.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:19:05 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d0cbbb$0$27157$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>clifto wrote:
>
>
>The problem is that non-coffee people often equate burnt with strong.

The real problem is that Starbucks bashers have adopted "burnt" with no
real appreciation for darker roasts.

>Apparently they have never had a cup of strong, medium roast coffee,

Like so many others, you're confusing strength with deepness of roast.
They are two different things entirely.

>which is understandable since you can't get such a thing at Starbucks,
>unless a store happens to do a medium roast as the "coffee of the day,"
>and that's pretty rare, in my experience.

Actually quite common.

>There are smaller, specialty coffee houses that do medium roast brewed
>coffee, but you have to search them out.

The better ones also have light and dark roasts.

Some people prefer medium roast. Other people prefer dark roast. Still
others prefer light roast. There is no one best roast.

>Or you can buy medium roast
>coffee and do it yourself. The advantage is you can drink such coffee
>black without drowning it with milk and sugar. It's like drinking good
>whiskey straight, rather than mixing it with something sweet like soda
>or orange juice to hide the taste.

Likewise good dark roasts.

>Plain coffee is much less profitable
>than $3-4 espresso drinks, so understandably Starbucks doesn't want to
>push plain coffee.

Can't resist bashing, can you?

>You often stumble across good coffee in places that you don't expect. If
>it's a cafe or store owned by Pakistani's or Indian's, often the coffee
>is good, Chinese, usually not so good, though judging from the number of
>coffee houses in Taiwan, it should be better than it is.

Mostly dreadful.

>See "http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EK18Aa01.html"
>
>What is American Culture
>
>"2. Burnt coffee at exorbitant prices. The most popular cafe chain,
>whose name decent people do not pronounce, burns its coffee beans to
>produce what Americans mistakenly believe is an authentic European
>taste. Proper coffee, by which of course I mean Italian coffee, is
>bittersweet, not burned. Americans evidently hate the wretched stuff
>because they drown its flavor in a flood of milk, in the so-called
>"latte", something I never have observed an Italian request during many
>years of travel in that country. By contrast, Italians drink cappuccino,
>mixing a small amount of milk into the coffee and leaving a cap of foam.
>If Americans do not like it, why do they buy it at exorbitant prices?
>They do so precisely because the high price makes it a luxury, but an
>affordable one for secretaries and shopgirls."

How many more times are you going to post this biased drivel?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:18:39 -0700, Notan < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed>
wrote in < 57idnSs4y98CVk3YnZ2d
nUVZ_qDinZ2d@giganew
s.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>Have you ever considered the possibility that *you* might be wrong?

Sure. And you?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Steven J. Sobol

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

In article < Xns98D586E7F8185noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:

> A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
> Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
> in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
> http://www.chefmavro.com/

Hm. An Italian deli (of all places) sells Kona near my house. I'll
have to go try a bag...

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:39:27 -0700, Notan < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed>
wrote in < _rSdnfal7MgcTU3YnZ2d
nUVZ_s2vnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>All the time.
>
>But you frequently have a hard time discerning between fact and your opinion.

To repeat what I said earlier:

In your opinion. Opinions vary. And your insults only serve to
diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:33:50 +0000 (UTC), "Steven J. Sobol"
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
<slrnet1jpq.ijo.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>:

>In article < Xns98D586E7F8185noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
>
>
>Hm. An Italian deli (of all places) sells Kona near my house. I'll
>have to go try a bag...

Be warned that there are great differences in so-called Kona coffees.
See <http://www.coffeereview.com/reference.cfm?ID=63>:

However, retail sales of Kona coffee continue to be rife with dubious
marketing practices. Commercial roasters produce Kona style coffee,
Kona blend coffee, and Hawaiian hotels brew coffee vaguely labeled
Kona that probably consists in large part of (often low-grade)
Central America beans. In fact, it is difficult to find a good cup of
Kona coffee in Kona, and flat-out impossible in hotels. The colorful
bags of Kona coffee sold in Hawaiian supermarkets and airport gift
stores are almost always poor quality and stale. ...

Kona _blends_ typically only have a small amount of real Kona coffee,
the flavor of which is lost in the non-Kona beans. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kona_...a_ble
nds>.

Even pure Kona coffees vary considerably, depending on where and how
they are grown. The good ones are _very_ expensive, comparable in price
to other great coffees (e.g., Jamaica Blue Mountain).

So don't judge Kona by whatever the local Italian deli has to sell,
which is probably not representative of the best that Kona has to offer.

Another coffee worth trying is Molokai, another of the Hawaiian islands.
Quite a bit richer than Kona. <http://www.molokaicoffee.com/> Likewise
Kauai Estate Reserve <http://www.kauaicoffee.com/>.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Kurt

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

In article < jbe1t213nei1djl4ns6g
hv065livbs32ge@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:15:34 -0500, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
> < Xns98D586E7F8185noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>
>
> Lion is decent, but far from the best Kona coffee -- next time try Sugai
> <http://www.sugaikonacoffee.com/>.
>
> That said, Kona is a bit wimpy for my taste -- I'd much rather have a
> good aged Sumatra, or organic East Timor, particularly as roasted by my
> favorite coffee place, Pacific Bay Coffee in Walnut Creek, a genuine
> micro-roastery. <http://www.pacificbaycoffee.com/> It's far superior
> to Peet's or Starbucks, not to mention (yuk!) Mickey D, DD, or 7-11.

Mickey D got a higher score than Starbucks for their coffee

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16951509/

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

clifto

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:31:32 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
> <ktr6a4-sd7.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>
> In your opinion. Opinions vary. And your insults only serve to
> diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.

I didn't think that was much of an insult, if one at all. I would if I
believed you could have tried this little coffee shop's product, but
that's unlikely.

In any event, it's no more insulting than your remark about how "some
undiscriminating people" think the coffee is burnt.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

John Navas

2007-02-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:02:57 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-9A8192.13025712022007@news.giganews.com>:

>In article < jbe1t213nei1djl4ns6g
hv065livbs32ge@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Mickey D got a higher score than Starbucks for their coffee
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16951509/

A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.

Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
LOL!

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:33:33 -0700, Notan < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed>
wrote in <2tGdnScjYN- xQE3YnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2
d@giganews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>his opinion(s) above all others.

And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:03:50 -0700, Notan < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed>
wrote in < Y_6dnRKaw6fbeU3YnZ2d
nUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganew
s.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?

You tell me.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:35:24 -0700, Notan < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed>
wrote in < gbqdnYegf7Iydk3YnZ2d
nUVZ_o3inZ2d@giganew
s.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>If answering a question with a question is your idea of mature, I guess
>you win.

No, you win -- it's clearly so important to you.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Kurt

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

In article < kkm1t2141vjue23lgppf
0u4te97bbv6dup@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:02:57 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-9A8192.13025712022007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>
> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
> LOL!

Starbucks is still not great coffee. Worse are their often stale
pastries.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Jeff

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message

>
> No, you win -- it's clearly so important to you.
>

I know it's close to Valentine's, so why don't you two kiss and make up.
You're flirting is making me sick!

Todd Allcock

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

At 12 Feb 2007 16:00:32 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> No matter how many times you make this claim, it still isn't true. CR
> surveys suffer from self-selected samples of a non-representative
> population, making the data interesting, but not truly applicable to the
> universe of cellular subscribers.

How does the "non-representative" group skew the results when the
respondents' class (CR subscribers) has nothing to do with the product
reviewed (cellphones) and are aswering objective questions (i.e. saying
one had a dropped call isn't an "opinion") at least in a real-world
scenario?

For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.

But asking "cable TV subscribers," "Ford automobile owners," or
"bricklayers" objective questions about cellular service should tend to
get the same results if the sample sizes are large enough. (Unless, for
example, cell companies discriminate against bricklayers...)

> In addition, the sample size is
> actually small when broken down by area, further increasing the amount
> of error.

Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
things out. ;-)

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:23:40 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d0f6ff$0$27160$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Notan wrote:
>
>Actually for Starbucks, where all the U.S. stores are company owned and
>operated, two stores should be sufficient because there isn't a lot of
>variability.

Starbucks actually has quite a bit of variability between stores because
it's not a tightly controlled operation and has distinct submarkets
within its operation (e.g., Starbucks in Safeway stores versus
storefronts).

>For McDonald's, where there a lot of franchises, as well as
>a lot of company owned stores, you'd expect more variability on some
>menu items.

Mickey D's is actually well known for tight control of the delivered
product.

In other words, you have that backwards.

>The burnt taste that they complained about is not some huge secret, it's
>how Starbucks roasts and brews their regular coffee.

The brew has nothing at all to do with it. It's strictly a matter of
roasting, which is controlled by the parent company, but varies
considerably between the different coffees it sells.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:07:35 -0600, "Jeff" <nada@nowhere.com> wrote in
<Xq6Ah.6213$4H1.3656@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>
>
>I know it's close to Valentine's, so why don't you two kiss and make up.
>You're flirting is making me sick!

After you.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:04:19 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eqqvcn$1ei$1@aioe.org>:

>At 12 Feb 2007 16:00:32 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>How does the "non-representative" group skew the results when the
>respondents' class (CR subscribers) has nothing to do with the product
>reviewed (cellphones) and are aswering objective questions (i.e. saying
>one had a dropped call isn't an "opinion") at least in a real-world
>scenario?

Statistics 101: because it's non-representative of the universe. To
conduct meaningful sampling, you must take a _random_ sample of the
universe. CR fails on two counts:
1. CR subscribers are not drawn randomly from the universe, and have not
been shown representative of any universe other than CR subscribers.
2. Survey respondents are self-selected, and thus inevitably have an
unknown bias that's not accounted for in survey results.

>For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
>TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
>magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.
>
>But asking "cable TV subscribers," "Ford automobile owners," or
>"bricklayers" objective questions about cellular service should tend to
>get the same results if the sample sizes are large enough. (Unless, for
>example, cell companies discriminate against bricklayers...)

You're making assumptions, and "assumptions are the mother of all
screwups". (c) Jeff Liebermann

To truly understand the issue, you need to study up on sampling.

>
>Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
>things out. ;-)

That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Scott

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:5kh1t2d0jh5t78i
47627dsgrhkthnlbl15@
4ax.com:

>
> I consider myself a discriminating person;

And based on the many opinions you have posted over the years, you would be
alone in that view.

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:26:28 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <UA7Ah.875$tD2.713@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>I'll rephrase that...
>
>Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?

Nope. Just my own experience.

Any citations to the contrary? ;)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:52:16 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d10bc3$0$27176$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
>I guess that John is trying to convince people that if somehow you could
>get a sample size of 50,000 respondents, and it was all random, that the
>results would be different.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- I'm just stating the
science of statistics -- makes no difference how many samples you take
when the sampling isn't random, as in the case of CR, where is the
population isn't representative, and the sample is self-selected, two
serious flaws.

>Of course this is ridiculous, the sample of
>CR subscribers that are Verizon subscribers, are not going to be biased
>for or against Verizon, any more than the Sprint, Cingular or T-Mobile
>subscribers are going to be biased against their own carriers. I think
>what he doesn't understand, is that the survey isn't asking 50,000
>people "which carrier is best in your city?," it's asking for an
>evaluation of your own carrier.

You clearly don't understand the concept of sample bias, which has
nothing to do with your kind of bias.

>Now if you surveyed only long distance truck drivers, and trucking
>firms, of course Verizon is going to have a huge advantage, because they
>have much wider coverage than Cingular in non-urban areas due to AMPS.
>The commercial carriers still use AMPS in areas where there is no CDMA
>coverage (see "http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=51944").

Again, that's irrelevant, because that's not how sampling works.

>Of course Navas is just extremely upset that for yet another year,
>Cingular fared extremely poorly in the Consumer Reports survey AND the
>J.D. Power surveys. That's why he feels compelled to make up ridiculous
>stories to try and defend them, part of which is trying to attack the
>companies doing the surveys.

Nothing of the sort. I have no agenda -- I'm simply sick of your
agenda. In fact the differences in the better surveys (e.g., J.D.
Powers) are actually small, probably within the level of sampling error.

>
>The margin of error is still extremely small, even when broken down by
>region and then by carrier.

There'a actually no way to know the actual margin of error, given the
way the survey was taken, and the small sample size when broken down by
area makes it even worse.

>Additionally, in some regions, such as the
>San Francisco Bay Area, there is such a large difference, that even with
>the maximum amount of error applied, Cingular still does extremely
>poorly, and Verizon does extremely well.

Again, the differences in the better surveys are actually small,
probably within the level of sampling error.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:53:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d10bef$0$27176$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>He discriminates against the truth and the facts on a daily basis.

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

--
Best regards,
John Navas

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Scott

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:eb22t257gcjcpsk
9gcl10hl2grfh243btj@
4ax.com:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:26:28 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
> wrote in <UA7Ah.875$tD2.713@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> Nope. Just my own experience.

So, all you have is biased, anecdotal fairy tales to back up your claim.
Sorry- not enough.

>
> Any citations to the contrary?

Of course there are- companies are always eager to talk about technology
they are not using.

You really must be that stupid.

Scott

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:6v42t211guulk1t
8hbgdrrem7ul4adubkv@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:53:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45d10bef$0$27176$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>

And those that don't have a clue use Google as their bible and post under
the name John Navas.

Todd Allcock

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

At 13 Feb 2007 00:21:41 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Statistics 101: because it's non-representative of the universe. To
> conduct meaningful sampling, you must take a _random_ sample of the
> universe.

Right. In theory. Which is why I followed it with "real-world."

> CR fails on two counts:
> 1. CR subscribers are not drawn randomly from the universe, and have not
> been shown representative of any universe other than CR subscribers.
> 2. Survey respondents are self-selected, and thus inevitably have an
> unknown bias that's not accounted for in survey results.
A bias that would most likely be even distributed among all carriers- for
example, if self-selection is, say, 20% more likely to generate replies
from people unhappy with their service, then all carriers will be skewed
negatively by presumably the same amount.

> You're making assumptions, and "assumptions are the mother of all
> screwups". (c) Jeff Liebermann
>
> To truly understand the issue, you need to study up on sampling.

I'm familiar with the theory, and often a true representative sample is
diffrent to obtain in the real world. For example, drug/medical testing
must be peformed on wiling participants- inherently a "non-
representative" sample, but one that doesn't necessarily skew results,
because the internal biological chemistry of humans isn't demonstrably
different between those willing and those unwilling.

work[color=darkred]
>
> That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.

Given the lack of a completely "blind" random survey, the CR one holds up
pretty well. In the real world, the ideal sample population is difficult
to find, so you do the best you can with as unbiased a sampling as you can.

Put another way, other than Cingular's "secret" least-dropped-calls
study, has any consumer group or independent research firm (i.e. J.D.
Powers) ever rated Cingular with the best network?

My experience over the last few years tends to support the CR study-
whenever, in my travels, I find myself in an area where some people can't
get service and some can, the ones who can have more often than not been
Verizon users. (Because I always ask, out of curiosity.)

Certainly that's not scientific, and certainly is not a "representative
sample" but it is generally the case in my experience.

Having said that, I still wouldn't use Verizon's service- between the
crippled phones, and high prices, I'm just not interested, but that
doesn't mean they haven't got the network right.

james g. keegan jr.

2007-02-12, 10:33 pm

In article < gp02t2tgdjbk6bh3a2ll
p06c2v92a7uv8l@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
[...]
> That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.

i hope this doesn't wound you too deeply john, but i suspect that
most sane readers would accept consumer reports statistics over your
biased commentary.

Austinman

2007-02-13, 4:33 am

I have 3G in Austin, Texas. Woo hoo.

Todd Allcock

2007-02-13, 4:33 am

At 13 Feb 2007 01:27:49 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

True enough, but sometimes those requiring evidence are forced to attack
the man who refuses to provide evidence... ;-)

Todd Allcock

2007-02-13, 4:33 am

At 13 Feb 2007 01:26:47 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> when the sampling isn't random, as in the case of CR, where is the
> population isn't representative, and the sample is self-selected, two
> serious flaws.

Non-random and non-representative are not the same thing, necessarily.
If I wanted to determine the average diameter of M&M candies, I could
open a bag, and average the diameters of all of the blue ones. While the
sample was non-random, and perhaps flawed statistically, the sample was
certainly representative and I'll guarantee you my "real world" answer
would be
correct within the margin of error!

Same with the CR study- as non-random as the sample might have been,
there seems to be no good reason to believe why it would not be
representative.

Todd Allcock

2007-02-13, 12:33 pm

At 13 Feb 2007 02:20:31 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Not good enough. 20 minutes is the limit to receive the all the
> antioxidant benefit.

To be fair, I think that as few of us coffee drinkers are doing it for
the antioxidants as red wine drinkers are! ;-)

Show me a study that says the effects of caffeine burn off in 20 minutes
and I'll stick a digital alarm on my coffeemaker right now! ;-)

james g. keegan jr.

2007-02-13, 3:33 pm

In article < 45d13e3f$0$27159$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> Yeah, but he's got the insane reader base locked up.

that appears to be the case.

Todd Allcock

2007-02-13, 3:33 pm

At 13 Feb 2007 11:29:14 -0700 Notan wrote:

> Coffee has saved my life, more than once.

Mine too- drinking nearly a gallon on an overnight run from Denver to
Kansas City. Must've been the anti-oxidants! ;-)

Seriously, I'm not discounting the health benefits present in coffee or
red wine, for that matter. I'm just suggesting that they might not be
the primary reason many of us partake in their delights!

B. Wright

2007-02-14, 4:33 am

In alt.cellular.cingular Todd Allcock < elecconnec@americaon
line.com> wrote:
> At 13 Feb 2007 11:29:14 -0700 Notan wrote:

[color=darkred]
> Mine too- drinking nearly a gallon on an overnight run from Denver to
> Kansas City. Must've been the anti-oxidants! ;-)

Either that or the fact that you had to p*ss so badly it kept
you awake. :) That factor supplements the caffeine effect on long road
trips. Cheap service station coffee usually has more caffeine too since
it's usually mostly the crappy robusta coffee (with 2x the caffeine over
arabica, but not so nice on the tastebuds).

As far as the McD's coffee, I tried it once, only because they
were marketing how much better they had made it now and sent a free
coupon. The only thing that made me happy about it was that I hadn't
paid for such crap coffee, I dumped it out.

clifto

2007-02-14, 3:33 pm

SMS wrote:
> Without claiming to be "discriminating," I have to admit that I'm a
> coffee snob, though I have some colleagues that are far more snobbish
> (one has done tests on every available brand of ½ and ½ to see which
> foams the best). I think that all the studies on the health benefits of
> coffee have had an effect on increasing the consumption, as coffee
> drinking is no longer viewed as some sort of a vice.
>
> It would be nice if more "discriminating" people learned that you don't
> have to burn the hell out of the beans, like Starbucks does, and that
> the result is a better tasting cup that doesn't need to be frozenated,
> sugared, flavored, or milked. In time, this may come to pass, and we all
> can enjoy a healthy future with delicious coffee, free wireless
> Internet, and ubiquitous cellular coverage on every carrier.

I'm much less "snobbish" than you claim to be about coffee; I will
frequently drink coffee others pour out. That's why it amazes me so
that people actually go back for more Starbucks. Then again, I drink
it black; maybe it's the frappe dolce latte crappay that they like.

From here on, everyone please specify the way you drink your coffee,
so we can see if additives have any effect on tolerance of Starbucks.

--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy

Larry

2007-02-14, 10:33 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45d34fda$0$2718
8
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Amazingly, I was able to actually locate this item at my local Sears.
> Yes, it does work well. Thanks.
>
>

You're quite welcome...(c;

Remember, just because it's crystals doesn't mean it's for injection or to
smoke....hee hee.

Larry
--
VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
NOONE will be spared!

Todd Allcock

2007-02-15, 4:33 am

At 14 Feb 2007 12:15:46 -0800 SMS wrote:

> I was on Cellular One/AT&T TDMA/AMPS so I knew what
> good cellular was, so when I switched to Cingular GSM I immediately
> noticed the difference, and switched to Verizon CDMA/AMPS as soon
> as possible. Had I never had Cellular One/AT&T, I might have thought
> that Cingular was how cellular was supposed to be (dropped calls,
> system busy, poor coverage).

Your cellular history makes me curious about a couple of things, if
you'll indulge me a question or two.

I realize your main requirement is coverage, and I can understand that.
But as a long time cell user, on a pure sound-quality basis only, all
else being equal, what's your preference? I used TDMA long before I used
GSM, and was pleasantly surprised how much better GSM calls sounded, and
I never thought CDMA sounded very good based on very infrequent use of
friends' handsets. A good friend and former employee of mine has worked
for Sprint a few years now and constantly tries to get me to join the
"dark side"... ;-)

Secondly, I realize Cingular had coverage problems out west on 1900MHz
(the old PacTel network that T-Mo has inherited.) But post merger, now
that Cingular has the old AT&T Wireless network (that apparently you were
a former customer of) isn't it nearly as good as the old ATTWS used to be
(other than the lack of analog?) I don't recall having any problems on
ATTWS when I've roamed on it out west (Vegas, San Diego and LA, but not
SF where you are) but that was in the TDMA days. (I loved the irony back
then, that I, a Cingular customer from Kansas City, a TDMA region, had to
roam in California despite being permeated by native, yet incompatible,
Cingular service.

As a funny aside, due to Cingular's extreme laziness in updating their
IRDBs (the TDMA equivalent of a PRL), my wife and I, both Cingular
customers with tri-mode phones, simultaneously roamed on different
carriers on a trip to San Diego- she on Verizon (in analog), and I on
AT&T TDMA. I'd have preferred the other way around, given the choice-
she had a cute little red Nokia 8260 that could barely do ten hours
standby in analog, while I had a 5165 with a far sportier battery life.

Dennis Ferguson

2007-02-15, 7:33 am

On 2007-02-12, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I was very glad to be able to use a CDMA phone in Korea, on the train
> ride to LG, though it was cheaper to rent a phone than to roam on
> Verizon, so that's what I did. There is no GSM service in Korea, though
> you can rent a CDMA phone that has a SIM card slot for your GSM SIM, so
> you can roam, but it's expensive, and it may only work with European
> carriers. They did this for the 2002 FIFA World Cup, and I presume that
> they kept the system in place.

All the Korean carriers now support UMTS in the European band, so there
is no difficulty bringing your own phone with a GSM SIM in it.

I'm not sure how long the CDMA2000 roaming in Korea will last, actually.
SK Telecom, the only Korean network with whom a US CDMA phone could roam,
announced sometime last year that they'll no longer be spending money
on the CDMA2000 network and expected to eventually be able to retire it.

Dennis Ferguson

John Navas

2007-02-15, 12:33 pm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:51:15 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eqrqm0$q2b$1@aioe.org>:

>At 13 Feb 2007 01:26:47 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>Non-random and non-representative are not the same thing, necessarily.
>If I wanted to determine the average diameter of M&M candies, I could
>open a bag, and average the diameters of all of the blue ones. While the
>sample was non-random, and perhaps flawed statistically, the sample was
>certainly representative and I'll guarantee you my "real world" answer
>would be
>correct within the margin of error!
>
>Same with the CR study- as non-random as the sample might have been,
>there seems to be no good reason to believe why it would not be
>representative.

The good reason is that CR subscribers have considerably different
demographics than the universe of cellular, making any CR survey
unrepresentative. Then there's the problem of self-selction.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-15, 12:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:27:08 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d13e1c$0$27159$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
>That's really the key point. It's not as if the CR subscribers are
>somehow biased towards one carrier or another. ...

Statistics doesn't work that way -- since the sample is non-random, it's
not a valid representation of the universe. The actual bias could be
estimated with real data, but that hasn't been done, and speculation
just doesn't cut it.

>
>It's funny to see people latch onto the lack of a double-blind random
>survey every time a survey presents results that they disagree with,
>while at the same time not being able to present and reasons why the
>survey is not credible.

Actually been there, done that.

>Yet in most cases it's not possible to conduct
>such a survey.

It's actually quite straightforward. The problem are that it's not easy
or cheap.

>The CR survey was very well designed, since any bias
>cancels out since it would be equal among all carriers. Combine that
>with the huge sample size, even larger than the J.D. Power surveys, and
>you have results that everyone agrees are the best you can hope for.

Simply untrue. CR surveys are easy and cheap at the expense of
statistical validity, much like its rating of coffees on only two (!)
samples of each vendor.

>
>Not only that, but Cingular has steadfastly refused to release the
>specifics of that study, which is highly suspect. Sprint is still suing
>them, AFAIK, and Cingular countersued claiming that Sprint doesn't have
>"the most powerful network" whatever that means.

At least Cingular used data from a respected third party, unlike
Verizon, which bases its own claims entirely on far more suspect
internal data, making them much less credible.

>
>Yeah, in my area (SF Bay Area) it's almost always the Verizon users that
>have coverage when no one else does. My daughter is constantly letting
>her friends and teammates use her phone when their Sprint, T-Mobile, and
>Cingular phones don't work.

In fact Cingular has better coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area in
general than any other carrier, Verizon included, your personal
anecdotal accounts notwithstanding.

>I do have to say that Cingular is improving
>quite a bit out here, and I notice a difference over the past year in
>terms of improved coverage.

Translation: It's getting harder and harder for you to make disparaging
claims about Cingular that will be taken seriously.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-15, 12:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:24:13 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eqrgpg$4lg$1@aioe.org>:

>At 13 Feb 2007 01:27:49 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>True enough, but sometimes those requiring evidence are forced to attack
>the man who refuses to provide evidence... ;-)

There is of course never a good excuse for ad hominem.

--
Best regards,
John Navas

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

John Navas

2007-02-15, 12:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:29:03 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eqr770$hdu$1@aioe.org>:

>At 13 Feb 2007 00:21:41 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>Right. In theory. Which is why I followed it with "real-world."

In practice, not just in theory.

[color=darkred]
>A bias that would most likely be even distributed among all carriers- for
>example, if self-selection is, say, 20% more likely to generate replies
>from people unhappy with their service, then all carriers will be skewed
>negatively by presumably the same amount.

With all due respect, that's speculation without foundation. Statistics
just doesn't work that way -- when it's flawed, it's flawed -- you can
only know the actual bias by measuring it with real data, something that
hasn't been done.

>
>I'm familiar with the theory, and often a true representative sample is
>diffrent to obtain in the real world. ...

Difficult? Not really (in this case at least) -- it just takes much
more effort and money than CR is willing/able to spend.

>
>Given the lack of a completely "blind" random survey, the CR one holds up
>pretty well.

Sorry, but there's just no way to know that.

>In the real world, the ideal sample population is difficult
>to find, so you do the best you can with as unbiased a sampling as you can.

It would actually be quite straightforward to do such sampling. Good
polling and market research organizations do so routinely. It just
takes more effort and money than CR is willing/able to spend.

>Put another way, other than Cingular's "secret" least-dropped-calls
>study,

Not really secret, since the organization gathering the data has been
disclosed, and certainly more credible than Verizon claims based solely
on internal testing.

>has any consumer group or independent research firm (i.e. J.D.
>Powers) ever rated Cingular with the best network?

In some cases (depending on what you mean by that), but how is that
relevant in this context? What better studies show, including JD
Powers, is that differences between carriers are relatively small, on
the order of the margin of error. And they have no bearing on the
credibility of CR in any event. If (say) someone claims that
human-caused climate change is real based on that person's belief, it's
still not credible even though real scientists agree -- it's simply a
coincidence.

>My experience over the last few years tends to support the CR study-
>whenever, in my travels, I find myself in an area where some people can't
>get service and some can, the ones who can have more often than not been
>Verizon users. (Because I always ask, out of curiosity.)

Fair enough. I personally don't think experience of a few years is
relevant to the current situation, and my own observation is that
Cingular cover is currently better in general than any other carrier.

>Certainly that's not scientific, and certainly is not a "representative
>sample" but it is generally the case in my experience.

Likewise.

>Having said that, I still wouldn't use Verizon's service- between the
>crippled phones, and high prices, I'm just not interested, but that
>doesn't mean they haven't got the network right.

Likewise, for those reasons, and also in my case for the reason that
Verizon hasn't gotten its network right in areas I care about, where
Cingular clearly has the best coverage.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-15, 12:33 pm

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:26:34 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <er11av$lh3$3@aioe.org>:

>But as a long time cell user, on a pure sound-quality basis only, all
>else being equal, what's your preference? I used TDMA long before I used
>GSM, and was pleasantly surprised how much better GSM calls sounded, and
>I never thought CDMA sounded very good based on very infrequent use of
>friends' handsets. A good friend and former employee of mine has worked
>for Sprint a few years now and constantly tries to get me to join the
>"dark side"... ;-)

GSM sound quality is generally better than CDMA2000 because of dedicated
channels and a superior codec. CDMA2000 can sound quite good in ideal
conditions, but degrades under load, and can be truly horrible if the
network gets saturated.

>Secondly, I realize Cingular had coverage problems out west on 1900MHz
>(the old PacTel network that T-Mo has inherited.) But post merger, now
>that Cingular has the old AT&T Wireless network (that apparently you were
>a former customer of) isn't it nearly as good as the old ATTWS used to be
>(other than the lack of analog?) ...

Cingular actually has a better network now than the old ATTWS, as a
result of both network upgrades and roaming on what's now the T-Mobile
network.

>As a funny aside, due to Cingular's extreme laziness in updating their
>IRDBs (the TDMA equivalent of a PRL), my wife and I, both Cingular
>customers with tri-mode phones, simultaneously roamed on different
>carriers on a trip to San Diego- she on Verizon (in analog), and I on
>AT&T TDMA. I'd have preferred the other way around, given the choice-
>she had a cute little red Nokia 8260 that could barely do ten hours
>standby in analog, while I had a 5165 with a far sportier battery life.

What you're seeing is probably different "homing" of the two different
SIMs. Even with ENS, the SIM will prefer its "home" network. This
issue will only go away when network integration is complete (as it now
is in most, but not all, areas).

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-15, 12:33 pm

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:47:49 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d480a9$0$27172$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>I do a lot of hiking and XC skiing, and this is where the AMPS coverage
>is extremely helpful, even not far from the urban area.

Verizon's coverage map says otherwise -- there are almost no AMPS-only
areas here in the SF Bay Area.

>If Verizon turns
>off AMPS in 2008,

As is very likely.

>I think that it will make Cingular and Verizon pretty
>close in coverage in the Bay Area, since Cingular is working on catching
>up in digital coverage.

Cingular is actually ahead in digital coverage.

>In 2008, that Forida analog coverage will almost certainly be gone
>unless the FCC changes their policy to only allow AMPS to be turned off
>in areas where there is digital coverage. In Alaska, they'll keep AMPS
>on for a long time, until they come up with a viable alternative, such
>as what Australia is doing with W-CDMA in the outback.

AMPS does _not_ have longer range than digital. What matters is handset
power.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-02-15, 3:33 pm

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:13:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45d4b0dd$0$27170$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
>Sound quality depends on several factors. CDMA can degrade each channel
>in order to cram more calls onto one tower, so GSM will be more
>consistent during a call. OTOH, GSM is much more likely to drop the
>call. Cingular's advertising claims not-withstanding, you get a lot more
>dropped calls on Cingular than on Verizon or Sprint.

CDMA2000 is actually more likely to drop calls than GSM due to cell
"breathing" under load, along with other technical issues, and in fact
the CDMA2000 carriers here in the San Francisco Bay Area have more
problems with dropped calls than Cingular.

The only real dropped call issue with GSM is when moving from one cell
to a cell that's completely full (no available capacity), but that's
quite rare in practice.

>All of the recent tests done on sound quality show CDMA to have better
>sound, ...

Not true, and notably no citations.

>I have both Cingular GSM service (on a prepaid MVNO) and Verizon
>CDMA/AMPS, and I don't notice any difference in sound quality.

But then you have a personal axe to grind against GSM in general and
Cingular in particular, not to mention a handset that gives subnormal
performance if your reports are accurate and not just made up.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Steven J. Sobol

2007-02-15, 3:33 pm

In article < 45d4b7d3$0$27226$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:

>
> Coffee helps prevent hearing loss.

Is it really necessary to re-start the coffee thread?

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Todd Allcock

2007-02-15, 10:33 pm

At 15 Feb 2007 17:23:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> The good reason is that CR subscribers have considerably different
> demographics than the universe of cellular, making any CR survey
> unrepresentative.

So that begs the question is the CR subscribers' demographic more likely
or less likely to have good service or bad service? I can't personally
envision a scenario that would cause CR subscribers to have vastly
different cell service than non-subscribers.

> Then there's the problem of self-selction.

I'll agree that's a bigger problem, assuming that unhappy customers might
be more likely to "grumble" about service than happy ones are to gush.
But again, that would drag everyone's scores down- not one carrier's, so
the relative results wouldn't be much different.

I suppose the easiest way to make the study accurate for me, would be
simply to subscribe to CR, then the results would apply to me, since I
would be part of the represented universe.

I'll let you all know how my subscription to CR affects my cellphone
reception... ;-)

John Navas

2007-02-15, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:15:19 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <er2lbh$drb$3@aioe.org>:

>At 15 Feb 2007 17:23:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>So that be