Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

Robert Coe wrote:

> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
> carriers should emulate.

Yes, that's what I intended. However I should also point out that out in
the western region, T-Mobile is different than the old Voicestream that
people back east are used to. Originally, T-Mobile did a swap with
Cingular, where Cingular let T-Mobile use their 1900 MHz western
network, and T-Mobile let Cingular use their 1900 MHz NY network. The
1900 MHz GSM network out west was particularly bad (I had it for a
year), and it still isn't the greatest. When Cingular took over AT&T
Wireless, T-Mobile got the Cingular 1900 MHz network. Because Cingular,
formerly Pacific Bell Wireless was so late to the party, they had too
problems, first they couldn't put towers in all the prime locations that
AT&T and Verizon had towers, and second they were stuck at the less
desirable 1900 MHz, which is big disadvantage in terms of coverage.
Voicestream had a much longer history, and had good coverage in much of
the country.

I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.

It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
Cingular, and far below Verizon.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:457779d3$0$82538$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was
>> pointing
>> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying
>> to
>> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied
>> and
>> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
>> carriers should emulate.
>
> Yes, that's what I intended. However I should also point out that out in
> the western region, T-Mobile is different than the old Voicestream that
> people back east are used to. Originally, T-Mobile did a swap with
> Cingular, where Cingular let T-Mobile use their 1900 MHz western network,
> and T-Mobile let Cingular use their 1900 MHz NY network. The 1900 MHz GSM
> network out west was particularly bad (I had it for a year), and it still
> isn't the greatest. When Cingular took over AT&T Wireless, T-Mobile got
> the Cingular 1900 MHz network. Because Cingular, formerly Pacific Bell
> Wireless was so late to the party, they had too problems, first they
> couldn't put towers in all the prime locations that AT&T and Verizon had
> towers, and second they were stuck at the less desirable 1900 MHz, which
> is big disadvantage in terms of coverage. Voicestream had a much longer
> history, and had good coverage in much of the country.
>
> I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
> least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
> service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
> potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
> discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
> in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
> non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.
>
> It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
> network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
> Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
> especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
> than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
> Cingular, and far below Verizon.

I live in NYC and was with T-Mobile since the days it was Omni Point and was
relatively happy with my service.
Granted the old Verizon service that my wife had at that time was better in
many respects than O-P/VoiceStream.
However for the past 2-3 years my T-Mobile service was in my opinion
excellent.

I just switched to Cingular 2 months ago and I am very happy with the
service. I have not had any dropped calls and only 2 calls going into voice
mail after one or two rings. I find the customer service just as good as
T-Mobile which I consider to be excellent.

The only reason I switched to Cingular was because I was very frustrated by
a lack of coverage in Virginia when I go to visit relatives that live there.
I loved the fact the T-Mobile always gave me the unlock code for any phone
that I owned so I could use local SIM cards when I traveled overseas which
was quite often.

So far after only 2 months I would rate Cingular a the equal to T-Mobile

Double Tap

Double Tap wrote:

> The only reason I switched to Cingular was because I was very frustrated by
> a lack of coverage in Virginia when I go to visit relatives that live there.
> I loved the fact the T-Mobile always gave me the unlock code for any phone
> that I owned so I could use local SIM cards when I traveled overseas which
> was quite often.
>
> So far after only 2 months I would rate Cingular a the equal to T-Mobile

AT&T Wireless had big capacity problems in NYC, which Cingular inherited
when they acquired them. Fortunately these problems seem to have been
solved. I was in NYC earlier this year, in Cingular was fine. I was also
in Washington DC where Verizon is still much, much better than Cingular,
with one of the major advantages being coverage in the metro.

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

>Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> I guess I read SMS's comments a little differently. I thought he was pointing
>> out that T-Mobile was being honest about their coverage areas and trying to
>> avoid selling their service to customers who were sure to be dissatisfied and
>> drag down their ratings. To me that's a sound business practice that all
>> carriers should emulate.
>
>Yes, that's what I intended. However I should also point out that out in
>the western region, T-Mobile is different than the old Voicestream that
>people back east are used to. Originally, T-Mobile did a swap with
>Cingular, where Cingular let T-Mobile use their 1900 MHz western
>network, and T-Mobile let Cingular use their 1900 MHz NY network.

Actually a joint venture.

>The
>1900 MHz GSM network out west was particularly bad (I had it for a
>year), and it still isn't the greatest.

Actually quite good.

>When Cingular took over AT&T
>Wireless, T-Mobile got the Cingular 1900 MHz network.

Actually a sale to T-Mobile by Cingular, with a purchase base of network
use by Cingular subscribers.

>Because Cingular,
>formerly Pacific Bell Wireless was so late to the party, they had too
>problems, first they couldn't put towers in all the prime locations that
>AT&T and Verizon had towers, and second they were stuck at the less
>desirable 1900 MHz, which is big disadvantage in terms of coverage.

Actually no real disadvantage.

>I think that one reason why T-Mobile did so well in the CR survey, at
>least in many regions, is that unlike Sprint and Cingular, who will sell
>service to anyone with a pulse, T-Mobile actually checks to see if the
>potential subscriber will have coverage, and if they don't, then they
>discourage the potential subscriber from signing up. This policy results
>in a lot fewer unhappy customers. With roaming on Cingular, in
>non-T-Mobile areas, T-Mobile has pretty good nationwide coverage.
>
>It's rather surprising how poorly Cingular fared, considering that their
>network is much larger than T-Mobile's. I'm most familiar with the San
>Francisco Bay Area, where Cingular has a lot less coverage than Verizon,
>especially in non-urban areas, but T-Mobile also has a lot less coverage
>than Verizon in the Bay Area, and was actually ranked the same as
>Cingular, and far below Verizon.

That T-Mobile did so well with less coverage than Cingular, given
network sharing agreements, actually shows the survey to be unreliable.

Cingular actually has the best coverage in the Bay Area. T-Mobile
isn't bad either. Sprint and Verizon are demonstrably worse in a number
of areas, including significant parts of the East Bay.

Take your Verizon advocacy to a more appropriate forum.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND:

1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.

2. Studies of carriers, including those he purports to cite, actually
show small differences between carriers (not a "wide margin" as Steven
claims) that are often within the margin of error. For example, recent
JD Powers ratings of major carrier call quality ranged from only +/-2%
to only +/-5% in its six regions.

3. Results for Cingular and Sprint-Nextel are patently distorted by
combining dissimilar technologies and networks (e.g., TDMA/D-AMPS + old
GSM + new GSM; CDMA + iDEN). This is roughly like claiming the average
person has one breast.

4. CU surveys can't be validly generalized because they are a
self-selected sample of a non-representative universe (CR subscribers).
(Usenet of course has a similar problem.)

5. Results showing T-Mobile with better network performance than
Cingular in the West are patently nonsensical, given that Cingular uses
the same network as T-Mobile (the old Cingular "orange" network), plus
the extensive ATTWS ("blue" network).

6. Verizon doesn't have coverage in some of the areas Steven claims;
e.g., large sections of Skyline Blvd, and nearby sections of Page Mill
Road and Big Basin Way.

7. All carriers have coverage holes. There is no one best carrier in
all areas, as Steven claims. I've previously identified some areas
where Cingular coverage is better than Verizon coverage; e.g.,
waterfront parts of Corte Madera.

8. Steven's claim that 1900 MHz takes "4x to 5x" the number of towers as
compared to 800/850 MHz is patently absurd.

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

In article <3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0cvuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.


can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
here or elsewhere?

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:19:04 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
<jgkeegan-99E5E6.18190407122006@individual.net>:

>In article <3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0cvuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
>> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
>> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.
>
>can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
>here or elsewhere?

Search my prior posts with Google.

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

In article <4f8hn2p2jpsdgrcfg4nu10hp67lfv3f8ja@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:19:04 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-99E5E6.18190407122006@individual.net>:
>
> >In article <3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0cvuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
> >> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
> >> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.
> >
> >can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
> >here or elsewhere?
>
> Search my prior posts with Google.

i'll take that to mean you have none and that you made up your
allegation.

that was kind of clear, anyway.

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:25:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
<jgkeegan-81C6B0.18252907122006@individual.net>:

>In article <4f8hn2p2jpsdgrcfg4nu10hp67lfv3f8ja@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:19:04 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
>> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <jgkeegan-99E5E6.18190407122006@individual.net>:
>>
>> >In article <3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0cvuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
>> >> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
>> >> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.
>> >
>> >can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
>> >here or elsewhere?
>>
>> Search my prior posts with Google.
>
>i'll take that to mean you have none and that you made up your
>allegation.

You are of course free to take it however you want, no matter how
unfounded and silly. Even without Google, my prior post contained ample
evidence of misstatements by Steven that can be verified easily, as you
know.

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

In article <4u8hn21gtsct6g1dk6t98h26c60b8jigqe@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:25:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-81C6B0.18252907122006@individual.net>:
>
> >In article <4f8hn2p2jpsdgrcfg4nu10hp67lfv3f8ja@4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:19:04 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
> >> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> <jgkeegan-99E5E6.18190407122006@individual.net>:
> >>
> >> >In article <3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0cvuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
> >> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
> >> >> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
> >> >> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.
> >> >
> >> >can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
> >> >here or elsewhere?
> >>
> >> Search my prior posts with Google.
> >
> >i'll take that to mean you have none and that you made up your
> >allegation.
>
> You are of course free to take it however you want

even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
considered false claims.

i expect most readers took your claim as false from the beginning.

In alt.cellular.t-mobile james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> considered false claims.
>

They are not considered false, they are considered unsupported.

> i expect most readers took your claim as false from the beginning.

I doubt that.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0