Consumer Reports finally got it right.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Last time CR did a cell phone story, Nextel was rated high for customer
satisfaction, right below Verizon. In the latest CR report, Nextel is rated
DEAD LAST for customer satisfaction. They went on to explain that "lack of
service" was a major problem for Nextel in all major cities surveyed.
(duh!)

I'm glad (and surprised) to see that CR finally published some accurate
information on nextel.

Cingular didn't rate very well, but at least they beat Nextel. And
considering the turmoil in cingular at the moment, I gues that's not too
bad. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:
> Last time CR did a cell phone story, Nextel was rated high for customer
> satisfaction, right below Verizon. In the latest CR report, Nextel is rated
> DEAD LAST for customer satisfaction. They went on to explain that "lack of
> service" was a major problem for Nextel in all major cities surveyed.
> (duh!)
>
> I'm glad (and surprised) to see that CR finally published some accurate
> information on nextel.
>
> Cingular didn't rate very well, but at least they beat Nextel. And
> considering the turmoil in cingular at the moment, I gues that's not too
> bad. -Dave

I haven't seen the report, but if I remember correctly from a couple of
years ago, the ratings were all very close.

For example, on Company A gets 89 out of 100, Company B and Company D
get 88, and Compay C gets 87. Bases on the "Company A is best and
Company C is worst" idea, Company A is soooooooooo much better than
Company C, but in reality, it barely tops out. Of course, if all
national carriers had rating bases on ALL areas, I'm sure they would all
rate very poorly.

TH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>Cingular didn't rate very well, but at least they beat Nextel. And
>considering the turmoil in cingular at the moment, I gues that's not too
>bad.

What turmoil?

NEXTEL is an SMR and they shouldn't be considered in a survey of Cellular and
PCS companies.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <20050107080756.06216.00001655@mb-m23.aol.com> on 07 Jan 2005 13:07:56 GMT,
sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote:

>>Cingular didn't rate very well, but at least they beat Nextel. And
>>considering the turmoil in cingular at the moment, I gues that's not too
>>bad.
>
>What turmoil?
>
>NEXTEL is an SMR and they shouldn't be considered in a survey of Cellular and
>PCS companies.

Of course it should.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http/navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-86F1C8.07354507012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 07 Jan
2005 13:37:15 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <20050107080756.06216.00001655@mb-m23.aol.com>,
> sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote:
>
>> >Cingular didn't rate very well, but at least they beat Nextel. And
>> >considering the turmoil in cingular at the moment, I gues that's not too
>> >bad.
>>
>> What turmoil?
>
>Remember the Cingular press release that said as of November 15 all
>their AT&T Wireless stores had been converted into Cingular stores??

There was no such claim.

>The press release in question is the one Navas claimed didn't exist,

I said nothing of the kind.

>and
>then of course never apologized when I produced it:
>
><http/www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=088644&TICK=CING
>UL1&STORY=/www/story/11-16-2004/0002458939&EDATE=Nov+16,+2004>

This fantasy of yours was previously debunked in:
<http/tinyurl.com/6dmau>
<http/tinyurl.com/6okdz>
<http/tinyurl.com/5voky>

(Still haven't learned how to post a URL without mangling it I see. I even
made http/tinyurl.com/46ll2 for you.)

--
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]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>Of course it should.

NO, they chouldn't!

John we have been over this and I thought that we had agreed to disagree on
this.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

John S. wrote:
> NEXTEL is an SMR and they shouldn't be considered in a survey of
Cellular and
> PCS companies.

The Consumers Reports article was titled "Ratings: Wireless carriers".
Aren't they a wireless carrier?

JPH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

> Remember the Cingular press release that said as of November 15 all
> their AT&T Wireless stores had been converted into Cingular stores??
> Hasn't happened yet. I was reminded of it driving by a strip center
> watching a Kinko's being rebadged as Fed-Ex Kinkos, while The ATTWS
> store still had the ATTWS sign up.


You CAN certify which ATTWS stores belong to the areas which Cingular is
divesting, right? There are areas in Texas that Cingular is REQUIRED by
law to divest, and cannot operate those areas under the rest of the
ATTWS umbrella because of DOJ requirements. You were previously
complaining that they won't help Cingular customers. Maybe they're not
allowed to. You say they still sell ATTWS plans...maybe because they're
not allowed to sell Cingular plans.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, Cingular technically owns all of ATTWS right
now, but is required to have another party operate them, ensuring that
Cingular tactics will not prevent competition.

"The 11 states covered in the consent decree are Connecticut, Georgia,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Michigan,
Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas."

This article is readily available, so I see know need to post links to
support it.

Sorry, I thought you'd be over the store issue by now.

TH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

> NEXTEL is an SMR and they shouldn't be considered in a survey of Cellular and
> PCS companies.

Okay, I'll give you that. Nextel does NOT currently provide
Cellular/PCS services. However, Nextel is a Wireless company, and
should be included if it's referring to Wireless, not just Cellular/PCS.

TH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>The Consumers Reports article was titled "Ratings: Wireless carriers".
>Aren't they a wireless carrier?
>
>JPH

No, they a a Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) company providing 2-way radio
service. Their Walkie Talkies just take advantage of the Carterphone decision
allowing them to interconnect to the public sitched network so they can also
make calls.


--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"John S." <sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree> wrote in message
news:20050109192939.06236.00000020@mb-m05.aol.com...
> >The Consumers Reports article was titled "Ratings: Wireless carriers".
> >Aren't they a wireless carrier?
> >
> >JPH
>
> No, they a a Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) company providing 2-way radio
> service. Their Walkie Talkies just take advantage of the Carterphone
decision
> allowing them to interconnect to the public sitched network so they can
also
> make calls.
>
>
> --

And the last time I checked, no wires were necessary for operation.
Wouldn't that make them wireless?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <20050109192939.06236.00000020@mb-m05.aol.com> on 10 Jan 2005 00:29:39 GMT,
sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote:

>>The Consumers Reports article was titled "Ratings: Wireless carriers".
>>Aren't they a wireless carrier?
>>
>>JPH
>
>No, they a a Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) company providing 2-way radio
>service.

Hmmm. Just like cellular. Just like PCS.

>Their Walkie Talkies just take advantage of the Carterphone decision
>allowing them to interconnect to the public sitched network so they can also
>make calls.

With all due respect, the Carterphone decision isn't applicable.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http/navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>