|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Sprint PCS > December 2006 > Re: Consumer Reports Ratings are Out----Verizon top carrier in 14
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 Ratings are Out----Verizon top carrier in 14
|
|
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In short, I would rate, based upon my or aquaintance experience as :
>
> 1. Verizon
> 2. T-Mobile
> 3. Sprint PCS
> 4. Cingular
I have a lot of friends and relatives in the Twin Cities area, and they
all use Verizon, after trying other carriers.. One friend lives west of
the metro area out near Hamburg, and the only thing that worked when I
visited them last year on their farm was AMPS. Cingular is hopeless in
the Twin-Cities, as the CR survey showed.
I think that it's rather amusing where CR states "our subscribers may
not be representative of the U.S. population as a whole." While true, it
also makes the CR survey even more valuable, since they're surveying
people with higher education levels, and higher incomes, that understand
the differences and why they exist. With such a huge statistical sample,
there is an extremely small margin or error in the results, less than
0.5% if the entire population of subscribers in the U.S. (around
220,000,000) is used. If the 43,000 responses were divided by 20 cities
equally, this would be 2000 responses per city, the margin of error
would be less than 2%. No one can argue with these results.
| |
|
| james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> john, the cu report i have says otherwise.
>
> can you cite the source you are referring to.
I have the Consumer Reports January 2007 issue in front of me.
Out of 20 cities:
Cingular was much worse than Verizon in Los Angeles, Miami,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix, San Diego, Tampa, and Washington D.C. (7
cities).
8 or more
Cingular was significantly worse than Verizon in Boston, Cleveland,
Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco (6 cities).
6-7
Cingular was moderately worse than Verizon in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas,
New York, Seattle (5 cities)
4-5
Cingular was slightly worse than Verizon in Denver and Saint Louis (2
cities).
Obviously John is reading a different publication, or he is
fictionalizing again.
| |
|
| Andrew267@gmail.com wrote:
>
> What is your metro area, wireless carriers perform some better than
> others in Markets? It is my Understanding that Verizon, Sprint, &
> T-Mobile all being CDMA use the same towers, However cingular is
> on a TDMA network and would have 1/3rd the towers of the other
Wow, you're more confused than the resident Cingular shill.
| |
|
| Ness net wrote:
> Carriers MAY share towers (forced to by NIMBYs, etc) in some locations.
You say that like it's a bad thing. The alternative is putting up
multiple towers.
What's amusing is to be at a planning commission meeting, where most of
the members are real estate people or developers (as is the case in most
towns), and Sprint or T-Mobile come in to try to get a tower approved.
Invariably, the opponents of the tower will bring up the fact that
Cingular and Verizon are able to provide coverage without towers in
these sensitive locations, and the carriers then have to hem and haw
about how they need more towers due to their operating frequency, how
it's unfair to penalize them for being newer operators that got the less
efficient spectrum, etc.
|
|
|
|
|