1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Verizon first in Consumer Reports satisfaction survey

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by HK, Jan 8, 2004.

  1. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:BVoOb.15359$zj7.3313@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:W_-dnSxfqviDm5fdRVn-
    >
    > > The margin of error is not the bone of contention here. The survey
    > > represents less then .05% of all cellular users, and no effort was made

    to
    > > equally represent all carriers, or insure that an equal percentage of

    > users
    > > from each carrier was included. For all we know, this was a survey of
    > > 30,000 Verizon users, 500 ATT users, 300 Cingular users, 100 T-Mobile

    > users,
    > > 80 Nextel users, 10 Sprint users and 10 users of other carriers. The
    > > controls, and the way the users were gathered, leave too much room for
    > > inaccurate information.

    >
    > Sorry, you're incorrect. The minimum number of respondents per city per
    > carrier was 150. The controls were in place to ensure that the data was
    > accurate. Even at the minimum response level the margin of error is low.


    The more correct way to take the survey would have 150 respondents per
    carrier, or x% of a carrier's subscriber base. The 'controls' you mention
    make my scenario more likely to occur, although not in the very sarcastic
    way I proposed it.

    >
    > Also, remember that this was not a survey where 31,000 people told CR who
    > their favorite carrier is. This survey was asking cellular customers from

    to
    > rate the service of their own carrier.


    Correct. But a skew in the number of respondents per carrier skews the
    results.

    >
    > > .05% of a user base is not a large sample.

    >
    > You're correct. It's not large, it's huge. Even if you divide up the total
    > number of respondents by metro area, it's still a large sample per metro
    > area, statistically speaking.
    >
    > As the article stated, the ratings are based strictly on survey results.

    Now
    > if you have some reason to believe that Consumer Report subscribers (of
    > which I am not one, BTW), are more likely than the population at large to
    > rate a specific carrier better or worse, I'd love to see that evidence.
    >
    > I do believe that the margin of error for Verizon was probably less than
    > that of other carriers, simply because Verizon is the largest carrier and

    no
    > doubt got the most responses. Furthermore, since CR subscribers tend to be
    > better educated and higher income than the population at large, I'd expect
    > that there are more Verizon subscribers among CR subscribers than the
    > population at large. However this does not change the actual ratings.
    >


    Assuming that Verizon has a more intelligent subscriber base is pure crap.
    But thanks for pointing out the biases of a CR survey in that last
    paragraph- it further invalidates the data as presented. Myjob here is
    done.



    › See More: Verizon first in Consumer Reports satisfaction survey
  2. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:W_-dnSxfqviDm5fdRVn-iQ@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    > news:AhnOb.13703$1e.5401@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > >
    > > The margin of error relates strictly to the sample size. This was a huge
    > > sample size. Do the math yourself. It's one over the square root of the
    > > sample size (multiply by 100 to convert to a percentage)

    >
    > The margin of error is not the bone of contention here. The survey
    > represents less then .05% of all cellular users, and no effort was made to
    > equally represent all carriers, or insure that an equal percentage of

    users
    > from each carrier was included. For all we know, this was a survey of
    > 30,000 Verizon users, 500 ATT users, 300 Cingular users, 100 T-Mobile

    users,
    > 80 Nextel users, 10 Sprint users and 10 users of other carriers. The
    > controls, and the way the users were gathered, leave too much room for
    > inaccurate information.
    >


    When doing survey analyses total population is not a factor until sample
    size approaches total population. The 0.05% of total population is a non-
    issue.



    Requiring 150 data point limit per carrier show CR integrity in not letting
    a few responses skew the results.
  3. "John Phillips" <0jdp@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:brqOb.78457$5V2.98862@attbi_s53...

    > When doing survey analyses total population is not a factor until sample
    > size approaches total population. The 0.05% of total population is a non-
    > issue.


    You are correct. I think that people that are unfamiliar with statistics
    have a hard time believing that it's the absolute sample size that
    determines the accuracy, not the percentage of the total population (or user
    base).

    Any errors or bias in the survey are cancelled out by the methodology. If
    someone claims that only disgruntled customers responded then this applies
    to all carriers. If someone claims that only happy customers responded then
    this applies to all carriers too. Again, they didn't ask 31,000 people who
    the best carrier was, they asked them to evaluate their own carrier.

    > Requiring 150 data point limit per carrier show CR integrity in not

    letting a few responses skew the results.

    CR is very concerned about integrity in their surveys of users. However I
    think that some people fail to separate their often incomplete product
    reviews from their surveys.
  4. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:05mdnWkbzYYHg5fdRVn-sA@adelphia.com...

    > The more correct way to take the survey would have 150 respondents per
    > carrier, or x% of a carrier's subscriber base. The 'controls' you mention
    > make my scenario more likely to occur, although not in the very sarcastic
    > way I proposed it.


    This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason. It's
    pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel, plus
    Cingular or T-Mobile (only in areas where they have reciprocal GSM sharing
    agreements that began only a couple of years ago).

    > Correct. But a skew in the number of respondents per carrier skews the
    > results.


    It does not skew the results, it increases the margin of error up to 8% (for
    150 responses).

    > Assuming that Verizon has a more intelligent subscriber base is pure crap.


    Read more carefully. I said that the CR subscriber base has a higher
    educated and higher income than the population at large. But actually I do
    believe that the Verizon subscriber base is probably more intelligent as
    well, simply because they don't fall for gimmicks or select a carrier only
    on price or the coolest handset.

    > But thanks for pointing out the biases of a CR survey in that last
    > paragraph- it further invalidates the data as presented. Myjob here is
    > done.


    Yes, you've made yourself look like an idiot by presenting nothing to
    contradict anything in the CR artticle. You can move on to other areas where
    you don't know anything now.
  5. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:5oyOb.15502$1e.15078@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:05mdnWkbzYYHg5fdRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
    >
    > > The more correct way to take the survey would have 150 respondents per
    > > carrier, or x% of a carrier's subscriber base. The 'controls' you

    mention
    > > make my scenario more likely to occur, although not in the very

    sarcastic
    > > way I proposed it.

    >
    > This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason. It's
    > pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel, plus
    > Cingular or T-Mobile (only in areas where they have reciprocal GSM sharing
    > agreements that began only a couple of years ago).


    And how is this so clear?

    >
    > > Correct. But a skew in the number of respondents per carrier skews the
    > > results.

    >
    > It does not skew the results, it increases the margin of error up to 8%

    (for
    > 150 responses).
    >
    > > Assuming that Verizon has a more intelligent subscriber base is pure

    crap.
    >
    > Read more carefully. I said that the CR subscriber base has a higher
    > educated and higher income than the population at large. But actually I do
    > believe that the Verizon subscriber base is probably more intelligent as
    > well, simply because they don't fall for gimmicks or select a carrier only
    > on price or the coolest handset.


    Your assumption is just that, and an uneducated one at best. The carrier
    with a greater concentration of corporate, government and executive
    subscribers would qualify as such, and that is not Verizon. Do some
    homework and see if you can figure out which carrier that is- the answer is
    no further away than a couple of clicks on the Internet.

    >
    > > But thanks for pointing out the biases of a CR survey in that last
    > > paragraph- it further invalidates the data as presented. Myjob here is
    > > done.

    >
    > Yes, you've made yourself look like an idiot by presenting nothing to
    > contradict anything in the CR artticle. You can move on to other areas

    where
    > you don't know anything now.
    >
    >


    Look in the group archive- it is very evident by the accompanying article
    (which I have previously pointed out the lack of knowledge in) that they
    don't have a good grasp of either the cellular market or its mechanics. Any
    logical and intelligent person would agree that any survey taken where the
    underlying technology and market forces are not grasped by the surveyer are
    indeed crap.
  6. "John Phillips" <0jdp@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:brqOb.78457$5V2.98862@attbi_s53...

    > Requiring 150 data point limit per carrier show CR integrity in not

    letting
    > a few responses skew the results.


    One more thing, the reality is that in almost all cases the number of
    responses was far higher than 150.

    For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, there were 2093 responses. Let's
    assume, worst case, that there 149 Nextel and 149 T-Mobile responses thrown
    out (neither made the cut), this means a minimum of 1795 responses divided
    among four carriers, still a very good sample size for one metropolitan
    area.

    A sanity check on the CR ratings, shows them very close to other surveys
    done in this area. The big exception is AT&T which has gone down over the
    past year, but for a well-known reason, their botched TDMA to GSM
    conversion.

    There is no reason to doubt the validity of the CR survey, especially the
    relative ratings. The absolute ratings may be hgiher or lower than the
    general population for a variety of reasons. CR subscribers tend to be more
    affluent, and hence will live in more affluent areas. But this does not mean
    that the coverage is better in more affluent areas, it is often much worse
    (at least in the San Francisco Bay Area, where the more affluent areas are
    usually in the hills and valleys.
  7. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:pJudnUQulfxXKZfdRVn-vg@adelphia.com...

    > > This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason. It's
    > > pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel, plus
    > > Cingular or T-Mobile (only in areas where they have reciprocal GSM

    sharing
    > > agreements that began only a couple of years ago).

    >
    > And how is this so clear?


    Nextel failed to garner 150 subscribers in more than half the areas, and
    it's a safe bet that in the other six areas that they had the fewest
    responses as well. Not surprising, given their small market share.

    In NYC, Cingular, which started service only two years ago, using T-Mobile's
    infrastructure, did not garner 150 responses. In the SF Bay Area, T-Mobile
    started service only two years ago using Cingular's infrastructure and did
    not make the cut. In the SF Bay Area, Cingular is a very poor carrier, and
    it was well known that T-Mobile would have the same problems, which limited
    T-Mobile's ability to sign up subscribers. This extrapolates to L.A., where
    T-Mobile did make the cut, but it's a safe bet that they had the second
    lowest number of responses.

    > Your assumption is just that, and an uneducated one at best. The carrier
    > with a greater concentration of corporate, government and executive
    > subscribers would qualify as such, and that is not Verizon. Do some
    > homework and see if you can figure out which carrier that is- the answer

    is
    > no further away than a couple of clicks on the Internet.


    I already know the answer to that, it's AT&T. For now. But these entities
    stuck with AT&T because they didn't want to give up their numbers; they are
    increasingly frustrated with the deteriorating AT&T network. That's all
    changed now with number portability. What may save AT&T is the expected
    merger with Cingular, and this will also help Cingular in areas where
    Cingular lacks any 800 Mhz spectrum.

    > Look in the group archive- it is very evident by the accompanying article
    > (which I have previously pointed out the lack of knowledge in) that they
    > don't have a good grasp of either the cellular market or its mechanics.


    The part of the article we are talking about is a survey that is unrelated
    to their evaluation of the product.
    But in fact, this article demonstrated a lot of knowledge about the state of
    wireless. I was surprised to see them include the sidebar "Trouble in the
    GSM Network," which was right on the money. They had several warnings about
    Nextel's geographic limitations. I wish they had included something about
    the importance of having AMPS capability for users that venture outside of
    urban and suburban areas.

    Steve

    http://nycell.com New York City Cellular Carrier Comparison
    http://sfbacell.com San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
    http://socalcell.com Southern California Cellular Carrier Comparison
    http://earthroam.com International Roaming
  8. "John Richards" <supportdesk@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:7PZLb.7977$wv1.2300@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
    > > "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails
    > > to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than
    > > 31,000 responding."
    > >
    > > http://tinyurl.com/34oer
    > >
    > > That hardly sounds like even at attempt at scientific
    > > neutrality.

    >
    > With that large a sample size, you can rest assured that the results do a

    good
    > job of presenting the opinions of the average Consumer Reports reader.
    > The question then becomes, how well does the average Consumer Reports

    reader
    > represent the average cell phone user? I'm sure not many teenie-boppers

    or
    > high school dropouts subscribe to Consumer Reports, so the opinions are

    probably
    > biased somewhat toward middle age, upper middle class,well-educated

    citizens --
    > all in all not a bad group to listen to.


    This survey was exceptionally well designed, and any bias is cancelled out
    by the methodology. The absolute numbers may be slightly different than the
    population at large, but the relative ratings of carriers would not be.

    This was NOT a survey where they 31,000 people responded to the question
    "who's the best wireless carrier?" The people objecting to the survey
    results are simply not looking at the facts, or don't understand statistics.

    This is 31,000 people rating their own carrier. Unless someone is dumb
    enough to believe that subscribers of one carrier are more likely to lie,
    than subscribers of another carrier, I've seen no coherent argument against
    the CR methodology. The fact that CR declined to rate any carrier in an area
    if they got less than 150 responses, says a lot about their dedication to
    accuracy.
  9. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:cjzOb.17052$zj7.12936@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:pJudnUQulfxXKZfdRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
    >
    > > > This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason. It's
    > > > pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel,

    plus
    > > > Cingular or T-Mobile (only in areas where they have reciprocal GSM

    > sharing
    > > > agreements that began only a couple of years ago).

    > >
    > > And how is this so clear?

    >
    > Nextel failed to garner 150 subscribers in more than half the areas, and
    > it's a safe bet that in the other six areas that they had the fewest
    > responses as well. Not surprising, given their small market share.


    So, the survey may not show the best carrier for a market.

    >
    > In NYC, Cingular, which started service only two years ago, using

    T-Mobile's
    > infrastructure, did not garner 150 responses. In the SF Bay Area, T-Mobile
    > started service only two years ago using Cingular's infrastructure and did
    > not make the cut. In the SF Bay Area, Cingular is a very poor carrier, and
    > it was well known that T-Mobile would have the same problems, which

    limited
    > T-Mobile's ability to sign up subscribers. This extrapolates to L.A.,

    where
    > T-Mobile did make the cut, but it's a safe bet that they had the second
    > lowest number of responses.
    >
    > > Your assumption is just that, and an uneducated one at best. The

    carrier
    > > with a greater concentration of corporate, government and executive
    > > subscribers would qualify as such, and that is not Verizon. Do some
    > > homework and see if you can figure out which carrier that is- the answer

    > is
    > > no further away than a couple of clicks on the Internet.

    >
    > I already know the answer to that, it's AT&T. For now. But these entities
    > stuck with AT&T because they didn't want to give up their numbers; they

    are
    > increasingly frustrated with the deteriorating AT&T network. That's all
    > changed now with number portability. What may save AT&T is the expected
    > merger with Cingular, and this will also help Cingular in areas where
    > Cingular lacks any 800 Mhz spectrum.


    No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact.

    >
    > > Look in the group archive- it is very evident by the accompanying

    article
    > > (which I have previously pointed out the lack of knowledge in) that they
    > > don't have a good grasp of either the cellular market or its mechanics.

    >
    > The part of the article we are talking about is a survey that is unrelated
    > to their evaluation of the product.


    The part of the article that Iam talking about showed a complete lack of
    understanding about the industry. Lack of knowledge is not
    compartmentalized at will.

    > But in fact, this article demonstrated a lot of knowledge about the state

    of
    > wireless. I was surprised to see them include the sidebar "Trouble in the
    > GSM Network," which was right on the money. They had several warnings

    about
    > Nextel's geographic limitations. I wish they had included something about
    > the importance of having AMPS capability for users that venture outside of
    > urban and suburban areas.


    And the fact that Nextel was singled out shows the lack of knowledge- all
    carriers have geographic limitations. Was there any mention of the
    relatively small native network Verizon uses, and the various roaming
    agreements that expand that network, and change on a frequent basis? Any
    explanation to explain their concern about phones not always being portable
    between carriers? No there wasn't- this was an attempt to jump on the
    bandwagon of a popular topic in the press right now, and the fact that they
    are sponsoring a website used to bash and attempt to strongarm the carriers
    shows an even further lack of credibility and impartiality.
  10. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:e6AOb.15608$1e.3416@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "John Richards" <supportdesk@netzero.net> wrote in message
    > news:7PZLb.7977$wv1.2300@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
    > > > "The survey was done by sending more than 100,000 e-mails
    > > > to online subscribers of Consumers Reports, with more than
    > > > 31,000 responding."
    > > >
    > > > http://tinyurl.com/34oer
    > > >
    > > > That hardly sounds like even at attempt at scientific
    > > > neutrality.

    > >
    > > With that large a sample size, you can rest assured that the results do

    a
    > good
    > > job of presenting the opinions of the average Consumer Reports reader.
    > > The question then becomes, how well does the average Consumer Reports

    > reader
    > > represent the average cell phone user? I'm sure not many teenie-boppers

    > or
    > > high school dropouts subscribe to Consumer Reports, so the opinions are

    > probably
    > > biased somewhat toward middle age, upper middle class,well-educated

    > citizens --
    > > all in all not a bad group to listen to.

    >
    > This survey was exceptionally well designed, and any bias is cancelled out
    > by the methodology. The absolute numbers may be slightly different than

    the
    > population at large, but the relative ratings of carriers would not be.
    >
    > This was NOT a survey where they 31,000 people responded to the question
    > "who's the best wireless carrier?" The people objecting to the survey
    > results are simply not looking at the facts, or don't understand

    statistics.
    >
    > This is 31,000 people rating their own carrier. Unless someone is dumb
    > enough to believe that subscribers of one carrier are more likely to lie,
    > than subscribers of another carrier, I've seen no coherent argument

    against
    > the CR methodology. The fact that CR declined to rate any carrier in an

    area
    > if they got less than 150 responses, says a lot about their dedication to
    > accuracy.
    >
    >


    And the fact that you have admitted to up to an 8% error rate in portions of
    this survey, coupled with the fact the first-to-worst in any of the markets
    used was less than an 8% swing, shows again that this survey can not be
    taken at face value. The method of sampling did not have enough controls to
    insure a true view of any carrier's subscriber base.
  11. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:CPednX8X6c8nR5fdRVn_iw@adelphia.com...

    > And the fact that you have admitted to up to an 8% error rate in portions

    of
    > this survey, coupled with the fact the first-to-worst in any of the

    markets
    > used was less than an 8% swing.


    Obviously you have not read the survey. The swing between best to worst 8%
    in only one city. It was typically 12-14%, and as high as 15%. And of course
    the margin of errors would not all be in opposite directions. And of course
    the 8% is absolutely worst case, if there were only 150 responses, which was
    rare as well.

    > shows again that this survey can not be taken at face value. The method

    of sampling did not have enough controls to
    > insure a true view of any carrier's subscriber base.


    It was an exceptionally well designed survey, with low margins of error, and
    a large sample. Get over it.
  12. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:WZadnS-wreGAR5fdRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    > news:cjzOb.17052$zj7.12936@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > > news:pJudnUQulfxXKZfdRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
    > >
    > > > > This would have increased the margin of error for no good reason.

    It's
    > > > > pretty clear which carriers have the fewest responses, it's Nextel,

    > plus
    > > > > Cingular or T-Mobile (only in areas where they have reciprocal GSM

    > > sharing
    > > > > agreements that began only a couple of years ago).
    > > >
    > > > And how is this so clear?

    > >
    > > Nextel failed to garner 150 subscribers in more than half the areas, and
    > > it's a safe bet that in the other six areas that they had the fewest
    > > responses as well. Not surprising, given their small market share.

    >
    > So, the survey may not show the best carrier for a market.
    >
    > >
    > > In NYC, Cingular, which started service only two years ago, using

    > T-Mobile's
    > > infrastructure, did not garner 150 responses. In the SF Bay Area,

    T-Mobile
    > > started service only two years ago using Cingular's infrastructure and

    did
    > > not make the cut. In the SF Bay Area, Cingular is a very poor carrier,

    and
    > > it was well known that T-Mobile would have the same problems, which

    > limited
    > > T-Mobile's ability to sign up subscribers. This extrapolates to L.A.,

    > where
    > > T-Mobile did make the cut, but it's a safe bet that they had the second
    > > lowest number of responses.
    > >
    > > > Your assumption is just that, and an uneducated one at best. The

    > carrier
    > > > with a greater concentration of corporate, government and executive
    > > > subscribers would qualify as such, and that is not Verizon. Do some
    > > > homework and see if you can figure out which carrier that is- the

    answer
    > > is
    > > > no further away than a couple of clicks on the Internet.

    > >
    > > I already know the answer to that, it's AT&T. For now. But these

    entities
    > > stuck with AT&T because they didn't want to give up their numbers; they

    > are
    > > increasingly frustrated with the deteriorating AT&T network. That's all
    > > changed now with number portability. What may save AT&T is the expected
    > > merger with Cingular, and this will also help Cingular in areas where
    > > Cingular lacks any 800 Mhz spectrum.

    >
    > No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact.
    >
    > >
    > > > Look in the group archive- it is very evident by the accompanying

    > article
    > > > (which I have previously pointed out the lack of knowledge in) that

    they
    > > > don't have a good grasp of either the cellular market or its

    mechanics.
    > >
    > > The part of the article we are talking about is a survey that is

    unrelated
    > > to their evaluation of the product.

    >
    > The part of the article that Iam talking about showed a complete lack of
    > understanding about the industry. Lack of knowledge is not
    > compartmentalized at will.
    >
    > > But in fact, this article demonstrated a lot of knowledge about the

    state
    > of
    > > wireless. I was surprised to see them include the sidebar "Trouble in

    the
    > > GSM Network," which was right on the money. They had several warnings

    > about
    > > Nextel's geographic limitations. I wish they had included something

    about
    > > the importance of having AMPS capability for users that venture outside

    of
    > > urban and suburban areas.

    >
    > And the fact that Nextel was singled out shows the lack of knowledge- all
    > carriers have geographic limitations. Was there any mention of the
    > relatively small native network Verizon uses, and the various roaming
    > agreements that expand that network, and change on a frequent basis? Any
    > explanation to explain their concern about phones not always being

    portable
    > between carriers? No there wasn't- this was an attempt to jump on the
    > bandwagon of a popular topic in the press right now, and the fact that

    they
    > are sponsoring a website used to bash and attempt to strongarm the

    carriers
    > shows an even further lack of credibility and impartiality.
    >
    >


    Scott, do you have a vested interest in the outcome of this survey. Reading
    between the lines one could believe you are going to loose your job if this
    survey does not support your position.
  13. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:WZadnS-wreGAR5fdRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...

    > No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact.


    AT&T has the largest number of business, corporate, government, and
    executive subscribers. Nextel is a special case since it consists almost
    completely of subscribers in a few business markets which require PTT.
    Nextel is not a carrier that an individual subscriber would choose, due to
    their lack of coverage outside major urban areas.

    > The part of the article that Iam talking about showed a complete lack of
    > understanding about the industry. Lack of knowledge is not
    > compartmentalized at will.


    The article showed an good knowledge of the industry. The survey section is
    a very separate item, just as it is when they do a survey of automobile
    reliability versus their own recommendations as to the best vehicle to buy.

    > And the fact that Nextel was singled out shows the lack of knowledge- all
    > carriers have geographic limitations.


    Only Nextel combines very limited geographic coverage with the inability to
    roam onto other carriers outside areas with iDEN. Nextel is a very poor
    choice for individual subscribers. Its only value proposition is PTT.

    >Was there any mention of the relatively small native network Verizon uses,

    and the various roaming agreements that expand that network, and change on a
    frequent basis?

    They do indeed mention the advantage of being able to roam with all the
    carriers other than Nextel, yes.

    >Any explanation to explain their concern about phones not always being

    portable between carriers? No there wasn't.

    Yes there was. Again it's obvious that you have not read the article, only
    reports about the article.

    > this was an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of a popular topic in the

    press right now, and the fact that they are sponsoring a website used to
    bash and attempt to strongarm the carriers shows an even further lack of
    credibility and impartiality.

    How does a sorely needed campaign to pressure the carriers to improve
    service imply a lack of credibility or impartiality? It's for all carriers,
    not just the one that ranked best.

    Honestly, you sound like you're a shareholder of Nextel.
  14. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:9mLOb.19058$zj7.3141@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

    >
    > Honestly, you sound like you're a shareholder of Nextel.
    >
    >


    Now that I've read some of your other posts and website, I see that you are
    very much biased towards Verizon, which would explain your need to validate
    this survey. That would also explain the bias against Nextel, as they seem
    to present the business model that VZ can't attain.

    BTW- no Nextel stock interest here. Just like to see the truth from time to
    time.
  15. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:9mLOb.19058$zj7.3141@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:WZadnS-wreGAR5fdRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
    >
    > > No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact.

    >
    > AT&T has the largest number of business, corporate, government, and
    > executive subscribers. Nextel is a special case since it consists almost
    > completely of subscribers in a few business markets which require PTT.
    > Nextel is not a carrier that an individual subscriber would choose, due to
    > their lack of coverage outside major urban areas.


    Care to provide the FACTS that back this up, as it does not appear to be
    something that AT&T admits to.


    >
    > > The part of the article that Iam talking about showed a complete lack of
    > > understanding about the industry. Lack of knowledge is not
    > > compartmentalized at will.

    >
    > The article showed an good knowledge of the industry. The survey section

    is
    > a very separate item, just as it is when they do a survey of automobile
    > reliability versus their own recommendations as to the best vehicle to

    buy.
    >
    > > And the fact that Nextel was singled out shows the lack of knowledge-

    all
    > > carriers have geographic limitations.

    >
    > Only Nextel combines very limited geographic coverage with the inability

    to
    > roam onto other carriers outside areas with iDEN. Nextel is a very poor
    > choice for individual subscribers. Its only value proposition is PTT.


    Funny- unless they are violating Truth in Advertising standards, the facts
    would tend to disagree with that. The following are directly from their
    website:

    "Nextel serves 95 percent of America's Fortune 500 companies" (don't see
    AT&T saying anything even close to this)

    "Nextel and Nextel Partners, Inc., currently serve 293 of the top 300 U.S.
    markets." (Can you tell me how this qualifies as 'limited geographic
    coverage- it's more than Verizon itself claims)

    "Nextel and Nextel Partners service is available today in areas of the
    United States where approximately 248 million people live or work."
    (Hmmmmmm- that's a lot of people)

    "Nextel Communications, a Fortune 300 company based in Reston, VA, is a
    leading provider of fully integrated, wireless communications services and
    has built the largest guaranteed, all-digital, wireless network in the
    country." (I don't see any of the competition asking that this statement be
    retracted- its been a part of their websire for quire a while now)

    These are not mentioned by me as a Nextel advocate- only the facts as
    provided by each of these companies, who tend to promote their strengths and
    ignore their weaknesses when describing their companies.


    >
    > >Was there any mention of the relatively small native network Verizon

    uses,
    > and the various roaming agreements that expand that network, and change on

    a
    > frequent basis?
    >
    > They do indeed mention the advantage of being able to roam with all the
    > carriers other than Nextel, yes.


    The only advantage to roaming is to the Company itself, in the ability to
    collect extra revenue. A true 'first class' provider would not need to roam
    or charge for it.


    >
    > Honestly, you sound like you're a shareholder of Nextel.
    >
    >


    As I've said before, I'm not. I just happen to dig a little further, and
    attempt to not confuse my opinions and facts.
  16. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:08KdnQZYZK8WkJHdRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    > news:9mLOb.19058$zj7.3141@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > >
    > > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > > news:WZadnS-wreGAR5fdRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
    > >
    > > > No, its not AT&T. Far fron it, as a matter of fact.

    > >
    > > AT&T has the largest number of business, corporate, government, and
    > > executive subscribers. Nextel is a special case since it consists almost
    > > completely of subscribers in a few business markets which require PTT.
    > > Nextel is not a carrier that an individual subscriber would choose, due

    to
    > > their lack of coverage outside major urban areas.

    >
    > Care to provide the FACTS that back this up, as it does not appear to be
    > something that AT&T admits to.
    >
    >
    > >
    > > > The part of the article that Iam talking about showed a complete lack

    of
    > > > understanding about the industry. Lack of knowledge is not
    > > > compartmentalized at will.

    > >
    > > The article showed an good knowledge of the industry. The survey section

    > is
    > > a very separate item, just as it is when they do a survey of automobile
    > > reliability versus their own recommendations as to the best vehicle to

    > buy.
    > >
    > > > And the fact that Nextel was singled out shows the lack of knowledge-

    > all
    > > > carriers have geographic limitations.

    > >
    > > Only Nextel combines very limited geographic coverage with the inability

    > to
    > > roam onto other carriers outside areas with iDEN. Nextel is a very poor
    > > choice for individual subscribers. Its only value proposition is PTT.

    >
    > Funny- unless they are violating Truth in Advertising standards, the facts
    > would tend to disagree with that. The following are directly from their
    > website:
    >
    > "Nextel serves 95 percent of America's Fortune 500 companies" (don't see
    > AT&T saying anything even close to this)
    >
    > "Nextel and Nextel Partners, Inc., currently serve 293 of the top 300 U.S.
    > markets." (Can you tell me how this qualifies as 'limited geographic
    > coverage- it's more than Verizon itself claims)
    >
    > "Nextel and Nextel Partners service is available today in areas of the
    > United States where approximately 248 million people live or work."
    > (Hmmmmmm- that's a lot of people)
    >
    > "Nextel Communications, a Fortune 300 company based in Reston, VA, is a
    > leading provider of fully integrated, wireless communications services and
    > has built the largest guaranteed, all-digital, wireless network in the
    > country." (I don't see any of the competition asking that this statement

    be
    > retracted- its been a part of their websire for quire a while now)
    >

    Some how I thought Sprint had the largest all digital network.
    1) Is Nextel larger than Sprint?
    2) Does Nextel use Guaranteed to not count Sprint because Sprint roams on
    analog networks?
    3) Does Sprint have an analog cell someplace?
  17. "John Phillips" <0jdp@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:WKVOb.85119$sv6.200423@attbi_s52...
    >


    > >

    > Some how I thought Sprint had the largest all digital network.
    > 1) Is Nextel larger than Sprint?
    > 2) Does Nextel use Guaranteed to not count Sprint because Sprint roams on
    > analog networks?
    > 3) Does Sprint have an analog cell someplace?
    >


    I thought the same thing- but in reading the Sprint PCS newsgroup, it
    appears that analog is an option (don't know if it is strictly roaming or
    not). As far as Nextel being larger than Sprint, I wouldn't think so,
    either. What it may be is a case where the native network is larger than
    Sprint's, as I believe it is with Verizon. The advantage for PCS and VZW-
    they do expand the networks through roaming. The disadvantage to roaming
    for the consumer- higher costs and some features that don't function on a
    roaming partner's network.
  18. On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:55:50 GMT, "John Phillips" <0jdp@comcast.net>
    wrote:


    >>

    >Some how I thought Sprint had the largest all digital network.


    Sprint has the largest all digital PCS network. The keyword is PCS.

    >1) Is Nextel larger than Sprint?

    I don't think it is ... but the coverage could be a little different
    ... they may cover more densely populated areas differently due to a
    different demographic customer base.

    >2) Does Nextel use Guaranteed to not count Sprint because Sprint roams on
    >analog networks?


    Sprint roams on other CDMA carriers (both cellular and PCS) as well as
    cellular AMPS.

    >3) Does Sprint have an analog cell someplace?


    They do not own any analog equipment that is in service.


    Tom Veldhouse
  19. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:kKKdnTv0Rq_5r5HdRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "John Phillips" <0jdp@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:WKVOb.85119$sv6.200423@attbi_s52...
    > >

    >
    > > >

    > > Some how I thought Sprint had the largest all digital network.
    > > 1) Is Nextel larger than Sprint?
    > > 2) Does Nextel use Guaranteed to not count Sprint because Sprint roams

    on
    > > analog networks?
    > > 3) Does Sprint have an analog cell someplace?
    > >

    >
    > I thought the same thing- but in reading the Sprint PCS newsgroup, it
    > appears that analog is an option (don't know if it is strictly roaming or
    > not). As far as Nextel being larger than Sprint, I wouldn't think so,
    > either. What it may be is a case where the native network is larger than
    > Sprint's, as I believe it is with Verizon. The advantage for PCS and VZW-
    > they do expand the networks through roaming. The disadvantage to roaming
    > for the consumer- higher costs and some features that don't function on a
    > roaming partner's network.
    >
    >


    Thanks Scott
  20. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net
    <mailto:scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net>> wrote in message
    <news:08KdnQZYZK8WkJHdRVn-sQ@adelphia.com>...

    > Care to provide the FACTS that back this up, as it does not appear to be

    something that AT&T admits to.

    Certainly. Here's some sources. You can find others by googling.

    http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/do/Baz-in-stat_mdr.RoEB_DSH.ht
    ml
    "The providers with most to lose <from portability> are those with the
    greatest share: AT&T Wireless -- ranked No. 1 in the enterprise and No. 2 in
    small business and Verizon Wireless -- ranked No. 2 in the enterprise and
    No. 1 in small business in terms of subscribers, respectively."

    http://www.instat.com/newmk.asp?ID=788
    "AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless currently have the highest cellular
    penetration in the business environment, and therefore potentially stand the
    most to lose, as it pertains to that segment, on and after November 24th,
    2003."

    http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/StockPicks/P67308.asp
    "The company is most dependent on business customers, so it's most
    vulnerable to those customers using number portability to drive down rates."

    As I stated, AT&T has more business customers in absolute numbers, but less
    as a percentage of their total customers. As does Verizon.

    > "Nextel serves 95 percent of America's Fortune 500 companies" (don't see
    > AT&T saying anything even close to this)


    "Implicature n. The aspect of meaning that a speaker conveys, implies, or
    suggests without directly expressing. Marketers maintain they are not in
    full control of consumer meaning-making processes and therefore, are only
    liable for a literal interpretation of their ads. Unsurprisingly,
    implicature has become a valued advertising technique; weak and
    unsubstantiated product claims can be easily reworked into convincing sales
    pitches that can potentially mislead consumers to infer more meaning than is
    actually proffered."

    I think I see the problem. You actually take advertising at face value,
    without understanding the facts.

    Nextel's statement is almost certainly true. AT&T could make a similar
    statement, maybe with an even higher percentage. The fact that Nextel has
    subscribers at 95% of the Fortune 500 companies does not mean that they have
    the most business subscribers, the 95% claim is irrelevant. However it does
    serve to mislead people who don't look at the facts. They think, 'gee,
    Nextel has 95% of the Fortune 500 business for wireless.'

    > "Nextel and Nextel Partners, Inc., currently serve 293 of the top 300 U.S.
    > markets." (Can you tell me how this qualifies as 'limited geographic
    > coverage- it's more than Verizon itself claims)


    You have to look at geographic area, not just markets. Again, it's
    implicature. Nextel would like people to think that they cover 97.7% of the
    area of the U.S., after all, that's what you get from 293/300. But of course
    everyone knows that they don't cover anywhere near this. Still, Nextel's
    coverage is fine for their primary target market as a two-way radio
    replacement for businesses. It is not fine for the non-business user who
    expects coverage wherever at least AMPS is available.

    The value of a CDMA or TDMA carrier, and to a lesser extent a GSM carrier,
    is that its subscribers are not limited to just its own coverage area, they
    can roam when necessary. With an iDEN phone you can't even call 911 out in
    the boonies. With a TDMA/AMPS, CDMA/AMPS phone, you can.

    > "Nextel and Nextel Partners service is available today in areas of the
    > United States where approximately 248 million people live or work."
    > (Hmmmmmm- that's a lot of people).


    Yes it's a lot of people, but it's just more implicature. Again, you have to
    look at the facts, not at clever marketing. They don't claim that the
    service is available where people play, vacation, or travel through. You
    have to evaluate marketing claims very, very carefully; this is another
    meaningless claim.

    > "Nextel Communications, a Fortune 300 company based in Reston, VA, is a
    > leading provider of fully integrated, wireless communications services and
    > has built the largest guaranteed, all-digital, wireless network in the
    > country." (I don't see any of the competition asking that this statement

    be
    > retracted- its been a part of their websire for quire a while now)


    Look at all those qualifiers! Yes it is all digital. No it is not the
    largest digital network. It is the largest _guaranteed_ all
    digital_network_. Why is it guaranteed to be all digital? Because you will
    NEVER roam onto an analog network with Nextel, while with Sprint PCS, you
    _may_ roam onto AMPS out in the boonies. This is a bad thing for Nextel, not
    a good thing!

    Now to be fair, Nextel is not alone with these stupid statements. Sprint PCS
    had been doing the same sort of misleading advertising with the "the largest
    all digital PCS network." Again, not the largest digital network, not even
    the largest all-digital network, just the largest all-digital PCS (1900 Mhz)
    network, (but without a "guarantee" that you will never end up on an analog
    network which is not part of Sprint, but which their phones will roam onto).

    Sorry, but I get so tired of this whole _all-digital_ schtick that Nextel
    and Sprint PCS use to mislead people. Sprint was the worst, with their old
    "The Clear Alternative to Cellular" ad campaign a few years ago. If
    challenged, they could claim that they were saying was that PCS was better
    than AMPS, but to the non-savvy consumer, they were claiming that PCS was
    better than other forms of digital service, which is not true.

    When one learns to instantly decode the implicature, and wireless carriers
    use a LOT of implicature, it makes you wary of such claims and makes you
    look at the motivation for a carrier to make them. When I saw "guaranteed
    all-digital," a warning bell went off that I've just lost coverage in vast
    areas of the U.S. that don't have any digital coverage. I don't get a
    warm-fuzzy that "guaranteed all-digital" is something to be happy about, but
    I can see how many people would think that "all-digital" was somehow an
    advantage.

    When you get past the cutesy cameras, web browsing, PTT, etc, what counts
    for most people is the ability to make and receive calls wherever they go;
    Nextel doesn't deliver this. But let's be fair, it was NEVER the intention
    of Nextel to deliver cellular-like coverage. Nextel was designed as a
    replacement for a two-way radio, not a substitute for cellular.
    "Walkie-talkies are more than just a feature; they're the foundation of
    Nextel," says Albert Lin, a telecom analyst with American Technology
    Research.

    > The only advantage to roaming is to the Company itself, in the ability to
    > collect extra revenue. A true 'first class' provider would not need to

    roam
    > or charge for it.


    Not true. The FCC granted two licenses for each area. No carrier has
    licenses in every area, even with the opening up of the PCS spectrum. Nor is
    it desirable for them to do so. It is not feasible for a national carrier to
    extend their competitive rates into rural areas, where the cost of
    installing infrastructure is much higher (on a per subscriber basis).
    Roaming benefits the subscriber, because without it they would have no
    coverage at all in large parts of the country. Roaming benefits the rural
    carriers because it provided additional revenue. Of course Nextel, and their
    customers, are "protected" from this by not being able to make calls at all
    in large areas of the country. I felt bad for the poor businessman I met,
    who was a Nextel subscriber, who had to run to Wal-Mart in Anchorage to buy
    a Tracfone. He should have been aware of Nextel's coverage BEFORE he
    traveled. Perhaps he fell for the implicature in their advertising too!

    > As I've said before, I'm not. I just happen to dig a little further, and
    > attempt to not confuse my opinions and facts.


    Keep digging. You haven't gone beyond wild (and incorrect) speculation yet.
    The facts are out there. You've been misled by very clever advertising
    because you are not familiar with the industry and how it works.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?