Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

At 04 Feb 2008 18:11:24 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >> Verizon has always had better coverage and better service than
> >> Cingular/AT&T.
> >
> > On what planet?
>
> Check Yankee Group, J.D. Power, Consumer Checkbook (Bay Area),
> and Consumer Reports. All have done surveys with large sample sizes,
> and thus with extremely low margins of error.


Following your advice, I did. ;-)

None of the surveys I found references to online addressed coverage
_specifically_ (other than the "Consumer Checkbook" you referenced in a
later post.)

For example, the only Yankee Group survey I could find that put VZW on top
of anything was a four year-old survey of what carrier most business people
used:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1A25757C0A9629
C8B63

(Verizon was tops at 22% over Nextel at 20% and AT&T at 16%...
In 2003...
When ATTWS and Cingular were still separate companies and VZW was the
largest carrier.) Yes, Verizon "won" but it wasn't about network coverage
or quality. Applying the Yankee Group criteria (most consumers) to food
would arguably make McDonald's the "best" restaurant in the US.


J.D. Powers rated Verizon's network with the best "call quality" (not
coverage- they didn't rank that) in 2003 and 2006. The 2003 survey ranked
Nextel in 2nd place. Nextel? I've listened to 70-year old 78-RPM records
cleaned with steel wool that sound clearer than a Nextel phone call. That
strains any credibilty that survey has in my mind! ;-)

J.D. Powers has also ranked Verizon highest in customer satisfaction more
recently, but that doesn't necessarily equate to "best coverage,"
particularly since they were tied with T-Mobile, who has never been accused
of having the best coverage... <cue spooky music> ...UNTIL NOW! (see
below!) ;-)


> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in
> three others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.

Do the CR surveys rank coverage seperately? I haven't seen this January's,
but my recollection of earlier years' surveys was that "coverage" was
included in a soft of "call problems" category which included a variety of
reception problems, like no signal
static, dropped calls, can't hear other party, etc.

While I didn't read t
is year's yet, I found this quote from in it RCR Wireless News: 'T-Mobile's
service was "on par with Verizon in most of the metro areas we
surveyed..."'

T-Mo "on par with Verizon?" Still vouching for CR's survey's "coverage
cred?" ;-)

> Even when Verizon and AT&T turn off their AMPS networks, rural
> carriers have indicated that they will leave their AMPS networks
> in place for the foreseeable future.


Which will be great for whatever fraction of VZW's customers can utilize
it. As Smartphones and Multimedia phones continue to increase in
popularity, the percentage of VZW customers with analog capability dwindles
(unfortunately.)


> I always bring along a phone on Cingular/AT&T when I travel, just to test
> the differences.


You keep an _active_ AT&T phone just to compare it's coverage vs. the
carrier you already use and are already convinced of the superiority of?
That's pretty geeky, and almost as incredible as Nextel ranking second
in call quality in a survey! (Although, admittedly, I used to drive around
with a pre-IRDB Nokia 5120 in field test mode to compare signal strength
of the 800MHz carriers!) ;-)




> Last year, in Oregon, far north California, the Sierra Nevada, and
> Canada, the advantage of CDMA and AMPS was significant. In many cases
> it was roaming onto other CDMA networks, and occasionally AMPS, but
> in most cases it was native coverage. In short, all the surveys
> and tests were confirmed.


My very unscientific anecdotal "tests" confirm Verizon's slight coverage
edge as well- whenever I'm anywhere where my phone doesn't get a signal
(increasingly rare these days), I look around to see who does. Very rarely
do I see a Verizon user staring at his display and cursing lack of signal.
(But it has happened in my experience. In fact, my suburban Denver
neighborhood had no Verizon or AT&T coverage when I moved here four years
ago- I had to loan my realtor my T-Mobile phone to call her office when she
showed us my house the first time. At the time, the only carriers that
worked here were Sprint/Qwest [Qwest is a Sprint MVNO here in Colorado], T-
Mo and Nextel! My neighborhood certainly challenged my long-held belief in
800-MHz superiority!)

Last weekend my only "no signal" observation was with Nextel in Breckenridge.



(Reminding me again how greatly T-Mo has improved over the last four years-
I brought my PagePlus "backup phone" with me but never even tuened it on.
When I first moved to Colorado, I relied on my Beyond Wireless TDMA phones
whenever I left the Denver metro!) A Nextel-wielding couple seemed
surprised they couldn't get a signal at the edge of town. Frankly, any
Nextel users that travel often should only be that surprised when they CAN
get a signal! ;-)

In article <Xns9A3B371EEFB3noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> The Nokia N800 Linux internet tablet has the most sensitive 802.11b/g
> transceiver I have ever seen and it has no external antenna! The silly
> thing can connect and use wifi hotspots my Gateway laptop cannot even
> detect!

dude...that's because your Gateway is junk.

In alt.cellular.attws RBM <rbm@noemail.com> wrote:
>
> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
> I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
> didn't drop with another
>

Talking to empty air is a real bitch. Especially when one person can hear you
and you can't hear them or the reverse happens. A common occurance with GSM
and very rare indeed with CDMA. I have experience with T-Mobile, Sprint and
Verizon post-paid to back this up and AT&T pre-paid ... GSM simply does this a
lot compared to other technologies.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> CR makes so many errors though that they are an extremely valuable
>>> consumer resource. Basically, if CR likes it, you know you'll probably
>>> HATE it. :) -Dave
>>
>>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. ...
>
> I don't even hold a candle to you in that department, Steven.
>

Nice post edit Navas. Why did you cut his text?

He actually wrote:

"As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
newsgroups!)."

You don't like the truth about your spamming? And you certainly didn't like
the fact that I emailed you a legitimate complaint.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.

The way you test coverage is by testing coverage, not by
surveying cell phone end users.

As should be obvious from this thread, the perceptions of end
users vary wildly and certainly can't be relied upon for
something like this.

People tend to either like their service provider or hate it.
If they like it, they will "forget" about service issues
they've experienced when surveyed on the quality of service,
and if they hate it, they will exaggerate them. This is
simple human nature.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
>as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
>newsgroups!).

I've regretted just about every time I trusted CR about
something. It eventually got so bad that I canceled my
subscription because it simply wasn't worth the money.

They recommended a digital camera; I bought it and it was
crap. They recommended a particular toaster and claimed that
it could produce multiple batches of decent toast in quick
succession; I bought it and discovered that not only was the
second batch of toast awful, the first was almost as bad.
They recommended Cambridge Soundworks speakers; I tried them
and discovered they were tinny and weren't anywhere near the
quality of the Kef speakers I ended up buying.

To give them credit, they warned me that the 1995 Ford Taurus
had a bad reliability record before I bought a used one, and
we ended up spending thousands of dollars in repairs that
wouldn't have been necessary on a decent car, and I used
their new-car pricing service to get a good price on a Honda
Odyssey.

In short, I've found that their auto data is pretty good, but
all of their other reviews and ratings are extremely
unreliable.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws RBM <rbm@noemail.com> wrote:
>> Gosh, I didn't realize I was that stupid, to fall for an advertizing scheme.
>> I thought I switched because my calls kept dropping with one carrier, and
>> didn't drop with another
>>
>
> Talking to empty air is a real bitch. Especially when one person can hear you
> and you can't hear them or the reverse happens. A common occurance with GSM
> and very rare indeed with CDMA. I have experience with T-Mobile, Sprint and
> Verizon post-paid to back this up and AT&T pre-paid ... GSM simply does this a
> lot compared to other technologies.

I've used GSM in other countries, and it's nothing like GSM in the U.S..
The fault does not lie with the technology, it's possible to deploy
GSM in a way that you do not have those problems, it just hasn't been
done yet.

The U.S. presents more deployment problems for GSM than for CDMA because
of the vast open spaces, and suburbs where residents fight towers, which
is a less common problem in western Europe and Asia. A good comparison
is Australia, where they used CDMA to replace GSM in the outback. Then
they wanted to swap CDMA 2000 for another type of CDMA, and it's been
delayed because of deployment and coverage issues.

In my area, SF Bay Area, one reason the 800 MHz CDMA coverage is so much
better than GSM coverage is because of the topography, and the green
belt. A CDMA tower on the edge of the greenbelt provides coverage much
further into the "tower-free" zones. Similarly, a tower's on the edges
of the urban part of suburbs extend coverage further into the suburbs
where zoning doesn't allow towers. This has been an ongoing issue where
I live, where the residents complain about AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile,
then turn around and prevent towers in their back yards.

"Jonathan Kamens" <jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote in message
news:fo9sc3$4i6$2@jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>As expected, you have no references, no evidence, no citations. You're
>>as bad as Navas (well at least you don't spam an inapplicable charter to
>>newsgroups!).
>
> I've regretted just about every time I trusted CR about
> something. It eventually got so bad that I canceled my
> subscription because it simply wasn't worth the money.
>
> They recommended a digital camera; I bought it and it was
> crap. They recommended a particular toaster and claimed that
> it could produce multiple batches of decent toast in quick
> succession; I bought it and discovered that not only was the
> second batch of toast awful, the first was almost as bad.
> They recommended Cambridge Soundworks speakers; I tried them
> and discovered they were tinny and weren't anywhere near the
> quality of the Kef speakers I ended up buying.

Snip

Yup. Every CR I've read, there is usually a product in there that I own
(and love) and CR hates it. On the other hand, I've been shocked by some CR
recommended items that I know (from experience) are pure crapola.

As I've stated before, CR is a great consumer reference. If CR hates it, I
know I'm probably gonna love it. -Dave

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>> In the survey published in 2008 CR, Verizon was rated the best in
>> coverage in 17 out of 20 markets, with Alltel ranked the best in three
>> others. AT&T and Sprint were far, far behind.
>
> The way you test coverage is by testing coverage, not by
> surveying cell phone end users.

This is true.

Did you see the news story where they accompanied the Verizon testing
van? They tested all major networks for comparison. There was never any
allegation by any other carrier, or by the news media, that the tests
were somehow skewed. The one pseudo-complaint was that the van did not
test in-building coverage, but since most of Verizon is at 800 MHz, the
indoor coverage would have been equal to, or better (comparatively) than
the outdoor results.

No other carrier ever tried to dispute the results. Sprint claims to
have "the most powerful network," and T-Mobile concentrates on having
good customer service and the most peak minutes at a price point, but
neither claims to have the most coverage. Cingular briefly tried to
counter the Verizon campaign with their short-lived "fewest dropped
calls," ad campaign, but dropped it after lawsuits challenged the claim,
and even the company they hired to do the survey disputed Cingular's
advertising claims. Even if the claim had been true, in order to have a
dropped call you first have to be able to place or receive a call! Now
AT&T has switched to the intentionally more vague claim of "More Bars in
More Places."

> As should be obvious from this thread, the perceptions of end
> users vary wildly and certainly can't be relied upon for
> something like this.

They're not a double-blind test, but don't read less into them than they
really mean. Remember, the surveys of users are test of coverage by
default. I.e., the Checkbook survey included surveys of coverage while
traveling and local coverage. There is no reason to believe that one
carrier's customers would claim coverage where none exists or claim no
coverage where it does exist, any more than another carrier's customers
would claim this (Navas excepted). These are huge samples in statistical
terms, and false perceptions would cancel out.

Jonathan Kamens wrote:

> To give them credit, they warned me that the 1995 Ford Taurus
> had a bad reliability record before I bought a used one, and
> we ended up spending thousands of dollars in repairs that
> wouldn't have been necessary on a decent car, and I used
> their new-car pricing service to get a good price on a Honda
> Odyssey.
>
> In short, I've found that their auto data is pretty good, but
> all of their other reviews and ratings are extremely
> unreliable.

Where they often suck is in product reviews, because they lack the
knowledge to make proper evaluations of many specialty products. I've
seen incredibly poor reviews of items like bicycles and digital cameras.
Their vehicle reviews are usually okay, though in my view they over
emphasize the safety and reliability aspects and under emphasize
handling and performance. They also should included data on things like
ease of repairs, i.e. on some GM models you now have to remove the
bumper to change a headlight!

Where they are very useful in their surveys. They have extremely large
sample sizes and hence very low margins of error, and they use sound
statistical methodology. That said, the responders are their subscribers
(of which I am not one), so you're getting responses from a sub-group of
the population that has higher income, higher education, and are more
centrist to liberal in their political beliefs, but if there is any
skewing of the results, it'll skew them equally for all the products or
services surveyed.

I've purchased a car that they had rated as a best buy, then several
years later seen the reliability survey show that it was "much worse
than average." Had they been able to predict the reliability they might
not have recommended it in the first place.