Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In short, don't pull a Navas. If you have some evidence that contradicts
>>all the independent surveys go ahead and post a link to it. The reason
>>Navas lost all credibility is because he never has any evidence to
>>support his statements.
>
> You posted no links (as usual). Hoisted by your own petard.
>

He referenced well known names like JD Powers and others. It is not really
necessary to post a link to JD Powers when most people know how to find it
themselves. Although a link is supportive, it does not reduce his credibility
by a lack of such a link to a well known entity. If you can't find the
information yourself, then asking for a link and not receiving it would grey
the field a bit, but that is not the case here.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I was surprised to see that AT&T is still having problems in NYC. In
> their TDMA days they were horrid, but they still have issues with no
> service and circuits full.
>

Probably because GSM doesn't actually utilize multi-path very well and cell
overlap is a much bigger problem for GSM than CDMA. With GSM, neighboring
cells do not typically use the same frequency ... with CDMA they can, so they
can more easily locate CDMA cells ... and with better multipath support, they
get better coverage between building in downtown New York.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

On 2008-02-05, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> I think the colored dot chart is actually pretty good, if only because
>> it matches anecdotes I keep hearing. For example I've heard from more
>> than a few people (not only the resident Sprint troll) that Sprint's
>> coverage is very good in Los Angeles, while Verizon isn't so good, and
>> if you look at the colored dots it is clear that LA is pretty much
>> Sprint's best metro area and Verizon's worst.
>
> I looked at the chart, and while L.A. isn't one of Verizon's best
> showings, they still did much better than Sprint.

Yes, I put that badly. LA is Verizon's worst (it's the only metro
area where Verizon hasn't got a "Better" dot in some category) while
it is sort of normal for Sprint with one "Worse" dot. That's about
as close as Verizon and Sprint get anywhere, which suggests to me that
there's probably a lot of locations there where you'd be better off
with a Sprint phone than a Verizon phone.

> What surprised me was Miami, where Verizon is at 1900 MHz PCS. I think
> maybe because it's so flat they get by better with 1900 MHz than in
> other areas.

Verizon is actually 1900 MHz in Miami, Tampa and Dallas, yet notice
their results are as good (or better in some cases) as the areas where
they operate on 800 MHz. I think AT&T also runs at 1900 MHz in some of
the markets but their worst cases (Minneapolis, Boston and DC, maybe)
are where they're an 800 MHz operator.

That coverage results are better corelated with the operator than the
operating frequency doesn't surprise me at all. I don't think operating
frequency makes much difference in urban and suburban areas where
one is seldom trying to get more than a few miles from a tower, where
reflections are a problem and where everyone thinks they should be able
to talk with the too-short, negative-gain 800 MHz antenna in their
handset. You need a lot of towers no matter what. It is only in
very rural areas, where you want to get serious distance from cell
sites and where people might be more inclined to use car kits with
full-size antennas that 800 MHz begins to make a difference, and
there flat terrain is an additional advantage for 800 MHz since it
increases the sight lines.

Dennis Ferguson

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> He referenced well known names like JD Powers and others. It is not really
> necessary to post a link to JD Powers when most people know how to find it
> themselves. Although a link is supportive, it does not reduce his credibility
> by a lack of such a link to a well known entity. If you can't find the
> information yourself, then asking for a link and not receiving it would grey
> the field a bit, but that is not the case here.

Indeed, Consumer Reports is also well known, and Bay Area Consumer
Checkbook is easily found. Neither of these allow unpaid access, you can
pay for the article or find it at the library. References don't have to
always have a link. The Consumer Reports article is in the January 2008
edition. I don't think that they sell individual articles any more.

The Bay Areas Consumer Checkbook survey can be purchased at
"http://www.checkbook.org/cgi-bin/download/default.cfm?action=showsummary&FileID=543"

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:14:50 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnfqhkea.4f.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:

>That coverage results are better corelated with the operator than the
>operating frequency doesn't surprise me at all. I don't think operating
>frequency makes much difference in urban and suburban areas where
>one is seldom trying to get more than a few miles from a tower, where
>reflections are a problem and where everyone thinks they should be able
>to talk with the too-short, negative-gain 800 MHz antenna in their
>handset. You need a lot of towers no matter what.

Correct.

>It is only in
>very rural areas, where you want to get serious distance from cell
>sites and where people might be more inclined to use car kits with
>full-size antennas that 800 MHz begins to make a difference, and
>there flat terrain is an additional advantage for 800 MHz since it
>increases the sight lines.

Range in rural areas is primarily dominated by handset power and line of
sight issues, not frequency.

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

Dave wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:47a7dff4$0$84201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you say that? I've been using Motorola phones for the the
>>> last twelve years and have been satisfied! I bought a an old gray
>>> "brick" about 1996, a "Micro Tac" maybe? It was an analog phone. I
>>> replaced that ca. 2001 with a Motorola Star Tac ST7868W that served
>>> me well for six years. I purchased a RAZR in December which seems to
>>> work and meet my needs. I expect to carry the RAZR for at least two
>>> to four years. I know, "New every two", but I'm not about to spend
>>> money to to replace a working phone just because I CAN. Anyway,
>>> that's just Verizon's "hook" to get me to sign a new contract. . . .
>>> I've spent more time WITHOUT a contract, than with. . . . It doesn't
>>> do a thing for me!
>>
>>
>> Motorola phones excel in the radio portion, but are often lacking in
>> the UI.
>
>
> I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
> improved it greatly. Unfortunately, the radio portion always has
> sucked, and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if
> you've ever used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you
> would quickly realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas
> really does suck, badly. -Dave

If it sucks that badly, why haven't I ever noticed it? I live, and use
the phone, in the Philadelphia area. What should my phone be doing that
it is not?

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:10:15 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in <47A8DEC7.2050007@comcast.net>:

>Dave wrote:

>> I think you've got that backwards. The UI used to suck, but they've
>> improved it greatly. Unfortunately, the radio portion always has
>> sucked, and still sucks, and will probably always suck. That is, if
>> you've ever used a decent handset like (anything nokia for example), you
>> would quickly realize that the radio portion of just about all motorolas
>> really does suck, badly. -Dave

>If it sucks that badly, why haven't I ever noticed it? I live, and use
>the phone, in the Philadelphia area. What should my phone be doing that
> it is not?

Because, of course, it doesn't suck.
Dave's flaming, an unfortunate fact of life on Usenet.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29>

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

On 2008-02-05, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was surprised to see that AT&T is still having problems in NYC. In
>> their TDMA days they were horrid, but they still have issues with no
>> service and circuits full.
>
> Probably because GSM doesn't actually utilize multi-path very well and cell
> overlap is a much bigger problem for GSM than CDMA. With GSM, neighboring
> cells do not typically use the same frequency ... with CDMA they can, so they
> can more easily locate CDMA cells ... and with better multipath support, they
> get better coverage between building in downtown New York.

You are right about the multipath, though I think they can mitigate it
with equalization filtering. I don't think you are right about the
frequency reuse however, TDMA and early GSM may have had problems with
that but I'm pretty sure GSM base stations these days can even reuse the
same frequencies for different sectors on the same tower (it raises the
noise floor for the receivers, but that's what happens with CDMA too).
It's digital, and the radios have gotten smart about separating the
stuff they want from the stuff they don't want.

I can tell you for sure that there are existence proofs that GSM can
do extremely well in densely populated places. A lot of Asian cities have
population densities that make NYC look quite empty. I think Hong Kong
still has the most densely occupied urban neighborhood on the planet,
with a whole lot of big buildings. It also has 6 competitive GSM
carriers sharing the spectrum, a mobile phone market penetration rate of
over 130% (i.e. everyone big enough to physically carry a mobile phone
has one), and prices that encourage people to use their phones (the
come-on price for 2000 minutes monthly was $7.50 last time I was there),
yet I have never, ever had a problem with the phone service there, not
anywhere. It is clearly possible to engineer mobile networks for reliable
capacity and coverage, they just seem not to always do that in the
US (not even the CDMA carriers).

Dennis Ferguson

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:53:55 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnfqi193.4e.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:

>On 2008-02-05, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Probably because GSM doesn't actually utilize multi-path very well and cell
>> overlap is a much bigger problem for GSM than CDMA. With GSM, neighboring
>> cells do not typically use the same frequency ... with CDMA they can, so they
>> can more easily locate CDMA cells ... and with better multipath support, they
>> get better coverage between building in downtown New York.
>
>You are right about the multipath, though I think they can mitigate it
>with equalization filtering. I don't think you are right about the
>frequency reuse however, TDMA and early GSM may have had problems with
>that but I'm pretty sure GSM base stations these days can even reuse the
>same frequencies for different sectors on the same tower (it raises the
>noise floor for the receivers, but that's what happens with CDMA too).
>It's digital, and the radios have gotten smart about separating the
>stuff they want from the stuff they don't want.

Essentially correct, except the noise difference from reuse in different
sectors of the same tower is small, mitigated by directional antennas.

OTOH, CDMA has problems with:
* cell breathing
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/8066/22308/01040438.pdf>
* pilot pollution
<http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/mag/wireless_identifying_culprits/>.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

In article <fo9sc3$4i6$2@jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us>, Jonathan Kamens
<jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:

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

Their auto reviews tend to be good because they test a lot of autos and
that is their main effort. That is what they know, autos. Their other
reviews like for digital cameras are to be taken with a grain of salt,
although you can get some information from them. Just don't take those
reviews as gospel. I think those other reviews are so they have
something besides autos to fill the magazine.

--
Charles