At 11 May 2008 06:49:00 -0700 SMS wrote:

> > Can we at least agree that your above stated reason for their churn is
> > your _opinion_ rather than any independently documented evidence?
>
> No, but if it makes you happy, we can say that it's _one_ of the reasons
> for their high churn.


Then I have to play the "Navas card": cite, please? Point to ANY evidence
coverage is a leading cause of their churn. While T-Mo's coverage is not
as complete as their competitors, it's improved greatly in the last two-to-
three years (partially via roaming agreements,) yet their churn has been
fairly stable. Purely statistical evidence would indicate another cause.
(Just as Sprint's sudden spike in churn can't be due to their coverage- it
hasn't suddenly deteriorated, yet their churn is escalating.)

> Some of the J.D. Power studies are intentionally misleading consumers,
> and the one quoted was one of them.

No, but the OP may certainly have misstated them. The J.D. Power's survey
described here was a CUSTOMER SERVICE survey, period, ranking consumer's
experiences with the CS department of the carrier- no more, no less. How
is that "misleading?"

> There are similar studies where
> some of the worst quality vehicles win accolades for "sales satisfaction"
> or "initial quality" but the reality is that they're unreliable vehicles
> despite a pleasant buying experience...

Which would be misleading if it was a vehicle reliabilty survey. One can't
read more into a study than the data it presents. Again, J.D. Power's
survey described here was a customer service satisfaction survey, period.

> > T-Mo's rural coverage is lacking (comparitively), but in my 6+ years
with
> > them I find their urban/suburban coverage (even in the Bay Area) ranges
> > from adequate to excellent, depending on market.
>
> I find them excellent when I have coverage, and inadequate where there is
no coverage.


Funny. "Adequate" to me means it works almost anywhere I go- I've been in
metro/suburban areas (like the Bay Area) where occasionally stretches of
highway had gaps. Loss of coverage for a quarter-mile stretch on a scenic
highway is "adequate" IMO. I could have more complete coverage with Verizon,
but of course my $72 family plan (1000 minutes, with unlimited data on two
PDA phones) would jump to $130. Sorry- seamless coverage on the PCH on my
one trip out west every year or two isn't worth an extra $700/year.


> > (And, frankly, I thought we put the 1900MHz issue to rest.
>
> I don't know where you got that idea. Even the Sprint and T-Mobile
> people that show up at planning commission and city council meetings
> asking for approval for towers admit that this is an issue, though they
> never use "1900 MHz" in their lobbying. They are invariably questioned
> as to why Cingular and Verizon are able to provide coverage to these
> areas without the need for towers in these residential neighborhoods,
> and have to explain about the 'different cellular technology' they use
> that requires more sites. You can't look at a couple of areas where
> 1900 works perfectly well, and extrapolate from that that there is no
> issue (or apparently you can).

But you can look at one area- yours- and extrapolate that 1900 is a serious
disadvantage nationwide?


I simply said it's a factor that a typical metro/suburban build-out doesn't
usually have to be concerned with, since capacty issues already require a
denser build-out than coverage alone requires. Just because you live in a
fairly atypical NIMBY zone doesn't mean everyone does. I couldn't tell you
where the cell towers serving my neighborhood are- apparently they're
fairly inconspicuous enough.

1900 requires a little more engineering than lower frequencies, but not to
the point that it makes the higher frequencies or the carriers using them
undesirable for that reason alone. Apparently Verizon designs a good
network, according to your oft-quoted survey, even in their 1900-only
areas, so the frequency alone doesn't seem to be an issue IF the carrier
compensates properly for it.

Somehow, I suspect that if you moved to Miami, you wouldn't jump ship to
AT&T simply because they were the local 800MHz carrier, but would still be
banging the Verizon drum.