|
w5nl0
Member
2013-Sep-3 6:39 pm
JDPI have always wondered if JDP awards go to the highest bidder. Too much advertisement compared to a Consumer Reports award. Relevance? IDK. | |
|
| |
Re: JDPUC Cellular has won the North Central region for a number of years, so that argues against your theory.
However, my experience w/other downstate Illinois users is that Verizon and USC have the widest coverage in rural areas. | |
|
| cb14 join:2013-02-04 Miami Beach, FL |
to w5nl0
I fully agree with you. JDP is corrupt and their ratings lsargely worthless. Unfortunately, they are a powerful advertisement. | |
|
| | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2013-Sep-4 3:06 am
Re: JDPsaid by cb14:I fully agree with you. JDP is corrupt and their ratings lsargely worthless. Unfortunately, they are a powerful advertisement. I realized that when i saw centurylink got one. | |
|
| | |
to cb14
Both JDP and CU (CR) have the same issue - they're CONSUMER SURVEYS. Thus, this reflects how reliable people think their network is more than how reliable it actually is. | |
|
| |
to w5nl0
Yes very much so. CR is also very much the same. | |
|
| |
to w5nl0
Actually, JDP surveys customers, then with an "extortion-like" option, offers their info to "Highest Quality Company" for a price (normally $250K and up). I (beeched) here once about how they send you a $1 and 20 page survey to fill out, 90% having nothing to do with the product they started out with. My time is worth more than $1... but thanks! | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
And fewer failed callsVerizon might be more expensive but as someone who forks over $200 a month to VZW for six devices I would say its worth the cost. Their network is definitely more reliable. | |
|
| |
Anon12334
Anon
2013-Sep-3 7:31 pm
Re: And fewer failed callssaid by IowaCowboy:Verizon might be more expensive but as someone who forks over $200 a month to VZW for six devices I would say its worth the cost. Their network is definitely more reliable. The network is more reliable no doubt, but your pricing is outdated. You must have an older family plan with some basic phones on the account. The only plans available to new customers today (the Share Everything plans), would be $280/mo bare minimum if they were all smartphones, $220 bare minimum if they were all basic phones. That's using the 500-MB-shared-between-all-six-devices plan that isn't even in their brochures because it's such a tiny amount of data. Of course that's before any taxes, fees, or company discounts, of which the discount would only apply to $40 of that bare-minimum $220 total. You got a good deal going right now, no doubt. Just know that the vast majority of Verizon customers are paying much more per phone than you are. Please do keep that in mind when you make your argument of "they're worth the cost" | |
|
| | IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Re: And fewer failed callssaid by Anon12334 :said by IowaCowboy:Verizon might be more expensive but as someone who forks over $200 a month to VZW for six devices I would say its worth the cost. Their network is definitely more reliable. The network is more reliable no doubt, but your pricing is outdated. You must have an older family plan with some basic phones on the account. The only plans available to new customers today (the Share Everything plans), would be $280/mo bare minimum if they were all smartphones, $220 bare minimum if they were all basic phones. That's using the 500-MB-shared-between-all-six-devices plan that isn't even in their brochures because it's such a tiny amount of data. Of course that's before any taxes, fees, or company discounts, of which the discount would only apply to $40 of that bare-minimum $220 total. You got a good deal going right now, no doubt. Just know that the vast majority of Verizon customers are paying much more per phone than you are. Please do keep that in mind when you make your argument of "they're worth the cost" Here is a breakdown of my lines: 4 GB of data ShareEverything 1 iPhone 2 dumb phones 1 iPad 1 iPad mini 1 4G MiFi 4510L | |
|
| | | |
Anon12334
Anon
2013-Sep-3 7:56 pm
Re: And fewer failed callssaid by IowaCowboy:Here is a breakdown of my lines: 4 GB of data ShareEverything -$70 1 iPhone - $40 2 dumb phones - $60 1 iPad - $10 1 iPad mini - another $10 1 4G MiFi 4510L - $20 Well I'll be damned, you were right, that adds up to $210 before taxes and fees. The iPads and Mifi threw off my math. My bad. Though I would suggest removing the iPads entirely and just upgrading your Mifi 4510 to a newer model like the 55xx (I forgot the actual model number of the jetpack). Actually I have no idea why you have those two iPads attached to the account when you've already got a Mifi you're paying $20/month for the privilege of using. It all pulls from the same 4 GB pool anyway. I'm guessing it's a contract ETF issue. | |
|
| | | | |
wkm001
Member
2013-Sep-3 10:56 pm
Re: And fewer failed callsIf you aren't under contract I say get ride of the two iPads and the MiFi and upgrade the dumb phones to smart phones. Check out swappa.com or craigslist.org for good used phones. Your bill will be $10 less and all three smart phones will be able to turn on wifi sharing with that same 4GB of data for no extra charge.
Unless of course you have young kids that don't need a smart phone. Or don't want to put out the money for new or used smart phones... | |
|
| | | | | IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Re: And fewer failed callssaid by wkm001:Unless of course you have young kids that don't need a smart phone. Or don't want to put out the money for new or used smart phones... The users of the dumb phones don't want and/or need smart phones. My mother is 57 years old and my grandmother is 81 years old. They are the users of the dumb phones. At $30 per month for unlimited talk and text (since I'm paying the data charge anyways) ain't bad. I got them both the Samsung Convoy II phones. | |
|
| | | |
to IowaCowboy
I do apologize for being overly snappy in my response. I had a rough day today where I saved this 7-line Verizon customer thousands of dollars over the course of the next two years and still got bitched at because the transaction took half an hour longer than expected. Which wouldn't have happened if their poor credit score didn't require me to call in for manual review, and it's not like I have any control over their phone support line's hold times.
Thank god that's not the typical Verizon customer. It's just still on the top of my head, so... again, I'm sorry if I came across as a dick. | |
|
WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC 1 edit |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2013-Sep-3 8:48 pm
AT&TVerizon have put a lot of work into their network. AT&T may move closer in the future with their LTE network buildout I know I have been getting more bars and speed with just non LTE 4G or as I call it 3.5G in the area I live in which only has several small towns of population between 10k and 20k. A friend told me LTE would be on before the end of the year.
I wonder how the $130Billion deal with Vodaphone will have on network upgrades in the future. The $58.9B in cash, $60.2B in stock and $5B in loan notes. The cash has to hurt some even if it is borrowed. | |
|
| trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH |
trparky
Premium Member
2013-Sep-3 9:19 pm
Re: AT&TI'm getting more 4G LTE coverage in my city on AT&T than I ever did on Verizon.
In Cleveland, OH AT&T absolutely kills Verizon in the coverage department. It doesn't help that Verizon's coverage is piss poor in Cleveland, OH. | |
|
| | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Re: AT&Tat&t's LTE coverage is just that.. piss poor.
If you compare the Verizon LTE map with the at&t LTE map, at&t's coverage is highly laughable. | |
|
| | | trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH |
trparky
Premium Member
2013-Sep-4 12:04 am
Re: AT&TNot in Cleveland, OH. Verizon coverage in Cleveland is a joke! I dropped calls all the time and the signal strength was garbage.
According to RootMetrics, AT&T is best in my city. | |
|
| | | |
to SimbaSeven
Verizon needs it far more than AT&T does. AT&T's 3G (4G HSPA+) is ten times faster than Verizon's 3G. Here in Missoula, MT AT&T HSPA+ and Verizon LTE are actually quite similar speed-wise. | |
|
| | j1349705 Premium Member join:2006-04-15 Holly Springs, NC |
to trparky
said by trparky:I'm getting more 4G LTE coverage in my city on AT&T than I ever did on Verizon.
In Cleveland, OH AT&T absolutely kills Verizon in the coverage department. It doesn't help that Verizon's coverage is piss poor in Cleveland, OH. I have seen similar reports (in different cities) on some other forums. It appears that Verizon's LTE service is becoming overloaded in some places. This is impacting service quality and speeds. They are deploying LTE on AWS spectrum in the impacted areas which should help with the load once enough customers have devices which can access it. Meanwhile, AT&T has spent a ton of money to improve their HSPA+ network, and is rapidly deploying LTE as well. They may not have as many markets covered with LTE as Verizon, but to be honest, a properly built HSPA+ network can work pretty well. All carriers have spots where they are unusually weak or unusually good. That's why I have problems with all of the posts that universally trash (or praise) a single carrier. Ultimately the best carrier is the one that meets your needs, which may not be the one with the best overall reputation or nicest looking coverage map. As far as these surveys go, they don't tell you much... the regions are too large to mean very much. Studies that focus on individual cities are much more useful. Another issue with a lot of network reliability surveys is that they are not scientific. I have a theory that customer perception of what they are reviewing can have a major impact on the results. Verizon generally has a very strong customer perception... a lot of people think they are always the best. Therefore, they are less likely to complain about a problem... after all, Verizon is the best... right? If they don't work, just imagine how bad the others are. On the other hand, AT&T has had some serious issues in the customer perception department. I'm not here to argue whether or not they deserve it. Because of this, however, people are more likely to complain about every single issue they have. Looking at this another way... last year, Consumer Reports released a survey which ranked AT&T as poor for voice, and fair for text. Consumer Cellular, an AT&T MVNO ranked as very good for both categories. It is the same network... different plans, different customer service, and different devices, but the same voice coverage. Obviously something other than real world performance is impacting the results of these surveys. See the results here: » arstechnica.com/business ··· service/ | |
|
| | | trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
trparky
Premium Member
2013-Sep-4 8:18 am
Re: AT&TIn my city, it's not just Verizon 4G LTE data coverage that sucks in Cleveland, it's voice coverage as well. There's not enough Verizon cell sites in my city. I used to drop calls all the damned time on Verizon. I used to joke with Verizon Wireless Technical Support that I had to stand on one foot and whistle Dixie in hopes that the call didn't drop.
I got out of my contract, only after sending in an official complaint to the FCC which found its way up to the Verizon Wireless's Executive Team. They reviewed my case, confirmed that the coverage in and around my area was seriously lacking, and then proceeded to let me out of my contract with a completely waived ETF.
I then jumped ship to AT&T and have been happy ever since. More 4G coverage in more areas on AT&T. It may not always be 4G LTE but it's 4G none the less, far better than Verizon's 3G network in Cleveland in which their data network was so badly overloaded that it made dial-up seem fast. | |
|
| |
to WhatNow
Everyone is missing one important thing. They will be able to keep all profit and won't have to share. This money will use most or all of the profit but will be paid back. | |
|
| |
to WhatNow
Paying out that cash guarantees Verizon will keep their LTE network for post paid customers only. I wanted a newer phone and faster network so I am now post paid, after more than a year of pre-paid. As soon as pre-paid gets Verizon LTE access I'll be switching over.
AT&T turned on LTE in my area just a few months ago. The building I work in has an integrated antenna system in it. AT&T is not on that system. I would consider Aio if my phone could work in my office, we don't even get FM radio stations in the dungeon. | |
|
|
Jersey CityI live in Jersey City, 5 minutes from the Hudson River. If I get far enough away from the cell tower that's directly right behind me, towards the water, I get 1/2 a bar or none at all. I can't make a phone call, it's terrible.
For such a heavily populated area especially being so close to NYC one would think the service would be better. In Hoboken, the signal comes and goes from one block to the next, no kidding. I thought VZW was bad AT&T is worse. Sprint was only better but not by much. | |
|
|
FCC should shut down T-MobileThis is a shame and it should not happen in NYC. HSPA data does not work at all at NYCCT (Tillary Street and Jay Street), and there's NO reception at N train Bay Parkway station (Avenue O exit). Shame on you!!! | |
|
| |
Re: FCC should shut down T-MobileSo the FCC should shut down a competitor and cause higher market prices for everyone because a company has issues in a section of a large city that is extremely difficult to cover both technically, and permitting? Wow...
I think the FCC SHOULD recall SOME T-Mobile licenses, like those in Montana, for completely failing the spirit of them by not covering a single town in the state. But not covering a subway exit? Get real. | |
|
|
I'm Really Liking T-Mobile, These DaysVerizon may be the best, but I honestly can't see how folks can justify the cost, unless they've either a business need, a health/medical need, or money to throw away.
Sprint's performance has actually degraded for me, lately, so my wife and I are on the cusp of moving to T-Mobile. The experiment I've been performing with their network the last two weeks has shown me better coverage than I'd been getting with Sprint and the plan will cost us about half what VZW or Sprint would cost us. "AT&T" is out of the question.
Jim | |
|
| amarryatVerizon FiOS join:2005-05-02 Marshfield, MA |
Re: I'm Really Liking T-Mobile, These Dayssaid by jseymour:Sprint's performance has actually degraded for me, lately, so my wife and I are on the cusp of moving to T-Mobile. I just switched my line from Verizon to T-Mobile one month ago yesterday. T-Mobile is making changes quickly - in the past couple of weeks, I've seen LTE popping up all over the place where I was getting their "4G". | |
|
|
|