Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area

In article <45d62c80$0$27165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> clifto wrote:
> > John Navas wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:40:25 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> >> wrote in <45d527af$0$27176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> >>> Actually, if Verizon's claims hadn't been validated by the results of
> >>> every independent survey ever done, it'd be reasonable to question it.
> >>>
> >>> Cingular's claim is based on data that they won't release, from a
> >>> company that they paid to do the "survey," and all independent surveys
> >>> have come to the opposite conclusion. When you make a claim, but won't
> >>> provide any evidence to back it up, your claim is highly suspect. Navas
> >>> and Cingular are actually a lot alike in this regard.
> >> Wrong on all counts.
> >
> > He's not wrong on all counts. If he is, please point me to the released
> > copy of the Cingular survey.
>
> "http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/14/for_bjs_ignoring_item_pric
> ing_is_a_bargain/?page=2"
>
> "Telephia sent a letter this month to officials at all four major
> wireless companies, saying it didn't know how Cingular concluded that it
> drops the fewest calls. The San Francisco research firm also said it
> couldn't say whether Cingular's advertising is fair, legal, or responsible.
>
> "While we can't evaluate the specific analysis Cingular uses as the
> basis of its nationwide claim, Telephia can confirm that Cingular does
> have a statistically significant lower dropped-call rate than the
> competition across some market/time period groupings," said Sid Gorham,
> Telephia's chief executive, in the letter."
>
> Wow! And in some market/time period groupings the other carriers have
> fewer dropped calls. Not to mention calls that weren't dropped because
> they couldn't be made in the first place! Cingular built a whole
> national advertising campaign on data that the survey company says
> doesn't back up the claims in the ads. I guess Telephia is more than a
> bit worried about their reputation after what Cingular pulled, and
> needed to issue that statement.
>
> What happened is that Cingular was desperate to find some data, some
> survey, anywhere, that they could point to, after taking a beating in
> respectable, statistically sound, surveys from Yankee Group, J.D. Power,
> Consumer Reports, and others. The fact that the best they could do is to
> make up conclusions that the data doesn't support, is pretty telling.
>
> Note to Cingular. Follow Sprint's lead. Make up some metric that can't
> be measured, such as "most powerful," and you won't get so much bad
> publicity. "Cingular has the Most Potent Network in the U.S."

don't you just love it when they walk into openings like that?

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> don't you just love it when they walk into openings like that?

When they advertise like Cingular did with their "fewest dropped calls"
claim, they are actually hurting themselves more than they realize. Even
if Cingular's claim had turned out to be true, to the part of the
audience that has learned to pick apart advertising claims they've just
admitted that their network is worse than the competition in the metrics
that actually matter.

[REPOST]

Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).

For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requestt...>

Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
of no coverage.

The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

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

On 2007-03-24, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [REPOST]
>
> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
> better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
> AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
>
> For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
><http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requestt...>
>
> Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
> get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
> of no coverage.
>
> The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
> few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

Look at the area around 94020 on the Sprint Coverage map, or on the
Verizon map showing coverage for the old America's Choice plan. Notice
the latter calls this "Roaming or No Service". There is AMPS coverage
all through there, I've even seen a cell tower on a hill in one of the
parks off of Pescadero Creek Road. It isn't Verizon AMPS, however; I
believe it is AT&T AMPS (and TDMA?) service that they haven't got around
to upgrading yet.

I used to get AMPS service in there when I had a Sprint phone. I guess
the irony is that when I changed to Verizon (on the new America's Choice
plan) I lost that coverage.

Dennis Ferguson

In article <1d4b03dq4pv5nkt9jkfo5o5t3rv4s30au7@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [REPOST]
>
> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
> better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
> AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
>
> For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requestt...>
>
> Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
> get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
> of no coverage.
>
> The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
> few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

But Cingular maps, from my experience, are also less than accurate.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:47:06 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-C427D8.16470624032007@news.giganews.com>:

>In article <1d4b03dq4pv5nkt9jkfo5o5t3rv4s30au7@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> [REPOST]
>>
>> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls) that Verizon has much
>> better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
>> AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
>>
>> For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
>> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requestt...>
>>
>> Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
>> get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
>> of no coverage.
>>
>> The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
>> few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.
>
>But Cingular maps, from my experience, are also less than accurate.

In my experience they are pretty good.

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

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> Look at the area around 94020 on the Sprint Coverage map, or on the
> Verizon map showing coverage for the old America's Choice plan. Notice
> the latter calls this "Roaming or No Service". There is AMPS coverage
> all through there, I've even seen a cell tower on a hill in one of the
> parks off of Pescadero Creek Road.

Or 95043.

Yes, I've also found that the "Roaming or No Service" areas are AMPs
areas, while if there is really no service it is a "No Service" area,
though you can often pick up AMPS for quite a ways into the "No Service
Area." I found the same thing down in San Benito County earlier this week.

It's not just that though, it's that in areas with both AMPS and
digital, of course they show the area as digital, even though you get an
AMPS signal further from the tower than a digital signal. This is where
Navas is most confused, he thinks that the presence of digital coverage
means the absence of AMPS, without understanding that AMPS is a superset
of digital, that usually will have wider range of coverage. Of course he
actually does understand all this, he just pretends to not understand
because the lack of AMPS on Cingular's GSM is one reason why their
coverage in this area is so much poorer than Cingular's coverage.

In article <1d4b03dq4pv5nkt9jkfo5o5t3rv4s30au7@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
>few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.

I still get value from Verizon AMPS. Very frequently, I'll be inside a
building and getting a weak signal. My handset will
1. fail to begin a digital call
2. automatically switch to analog mode
3. begin the call in analog mode.

In such cases, I experience a noisy conversation, but at least I can
complete the call.

The location is my office, 95050 (Sunnyvale).

I just switched to a new handset TODAY, so I don't know what to expect
when I return to the cube farm. But my new handset does have AMPS.
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
^^

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:55:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4605d6a1$0$27158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>It's not just that though, it's that in areas with both AMPS and
>digital, of course they show the area as digital, even though you get an
>AMPS signal further from the tower than a digital signal.

Not true.

>This is where
>Navas is most confused, he thinks that the presence of digital coverage
>means the absence of AMPS,

Nope.

>without understanding that AMPS is a superset
>of digital,

It is in many cases, but not in all cases.

>that usually will have wider range of coverage.

Nope.

>Of course he
>actually does understand all this, he just pretends to not understand
>because the lack of AMPS on Cingular's GSM is one reason why their
>coverage in this area is so much poorer than Cingular's coverage.

Simply you have nothing to back up your claims, you stoop to meaningless
ad hominem, which only serves to discredit your claims.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 02:07:19 +0000 (UTC), arnstein@panix.com (David
Arnstein) wrote in <eu4lgm$e2r$1@reader2.panix.com>:

>In article <1d4b03dq4pv5nkt9jkfo5o5t3rv4s30au7@4ax.com>,
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
>>few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.
>
>I still get value from Verizon AMPS. Very frequently, I'll be inside a
>building and getting a weak signal. My handset will
>1. fail to begin a digital call
>2. automatically switch to analog mode
>3. begin the call in analog mode.
>
>In such cases, I experience a noisy conversation, but at least I can
>complete the call.
>
>The location is my office, 95050 (Sunnyvale).
>
>I just switched to a new handset TODAY, so I don't know what to expect
>when I return to the cube farm. But my new handset does have AMPS.

That can have value in some areas, albeit time limited since AMPS will
be going away soon, but my own preference is to use a superior digital
handset, and a good external antenna when I need extra signal
capability.

I've yet to find an indoors location where signal is available on a
different carrier (including AMPS) but my new Cingular RAZR V3xx can't
get a signal. It's a truly excellent handset.

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