Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

In article <Xns9893641262F6VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> jgkeegan@gmail.com (james g. keegan jr.) wrote in
> news:jgkeegan-AC55C6.18560007122006@individual.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.

i was 99.999999999% certain that john would not support his claim
when i asked that he do so.

he has not done so.

In article <be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhikk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <457988fb$0$82601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
> >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.
>
> '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.

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:
> >
> > 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.

you apparently are new to usenet.

the claims remain unsupported.

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...
> This piece of shit anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
> all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? 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 <be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhikk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <457988fb$0$82601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
>> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

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:

> 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...
> > This piece of shit anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? 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 <be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhikk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> >> wrote in <457988fb$0$82601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> >>
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

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...
> 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:
>
>> 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...
>> > This piece of shit anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
>> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? 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 <be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhikk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> >> wrote in <457988fb$0$82601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>> >>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
>> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

On 2006-12-07, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:17:59 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <457779d3$0$82538$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>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.

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 asshole 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...
> > 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:
> >
> >> 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...
> >> > This piece of shit anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
> >> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? 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 <be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhikk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
> >> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> >> >> wrote in <457988fb$0$82601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >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.
> >> >>
> >> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> >> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>
>

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...
> 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 asshole like you. Frankly,
> you are not very objective just like your other half -> anus navas.
>
>
> In article <wBteh.22207$xM4.19258@newsfe07.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
>
>> Even if it is cut and paste, it is still much more informative than the
>> garbage that you post. You devote your entire life to dissing Mr Navas
>> rather than posting technical information that may be informative to
>> other
>> members of these newsgroups. Why don't you stop dissing Mr Navas and
>> start
>> posting useful information so that other members of this newsgroup can
>> benefit? Maybe it's because Mr Navas has forgotten more about Cingular,
>> ATTWS, and GSM than you will ever know. :-)
>>
>>
>> "sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:nospam-020E3D.00320509122006@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...
>> > Stand aside, let me blow a load on your sister's eyes. Again, you are
>> > dangling navas' gonad. It is amazing that you find cut & paste
>> > informative.
>> >
>> > In article <Bnseh.104856$JA.62075@newsfe11.phx>,
>> > "Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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...
>> >> > This piece of shit anus navas has started cross posting from
>> >> > cingular
>> >> > all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? 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 <be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhikk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
>> >> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> >> >> wrote in <457988fb$0$82601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
>> >> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>>
>>

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. :-)
>
>
>