-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
The reason I pay...
- Thread starter 3devious
- Start date
kyler13
Android Expert
butthead007
Well-Known Member
I'm a little lost. Clicked on the pcworld link and it brought me to verizon wireless' website.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
3devious
Android Expert
PCWorld published a "study" declaring that Sprint was the best wireless service for the buck. The link to Verizon's site was the recently published JD Power findings that Verizon excels in all parts of the country when it comes to reliability and satisfaction. If you want to see what PC World said, tell IOWA that Sprint sucks and he will paste that article all over you. 
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
JD Power has been fixed for the last ten years lmao....
Wimax is already here. Lte is not.
The study conducted by pcworld was a real study, not asking people what they think about sprint/verizon. Big difference.
After alltel/verizon merger verizon has to allow other cdma operators to use their towers natively. It was like that before the merger too, when alltel had the best coverage.
So your reason for spending up to 1k a year more than me is....?
Wimax is already here. Lte is not.
The study conducted by pcworld was a real study, not asking people what they think about sprint/verizon. Big difference.
After alltel/verizon merger verizon has to allow other cdma operators to use their towers natively. It was like that before the merger too, when alltel had the best coverage.
So your reason for spending up to 1k a year more than me is....?
3devious
Android Expert
Someone who quotes PCWORLD is going to laugh at anyone else's source? You call that a real study. They even published their weak data collection methods. It's about as reliable as Sprint's service here.
Why do I pay more than you? I dunno, maybe I care about whether or not I get service a little more than you. We may share the same towers, but let Sprint explain why they don't have the coverage here that I do. I hope you put that money you save on cell phone service toward educating yourself.
Why do I pay more than you? I dunno, maybe I care about whether or not I get service a little more than you. We may share the same towers, but let Sprint explain why they don't have the coverage here that I do. I hope you put that money you save on cell phone service toward educating yourself.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Way to turn it into a personal attack. And you say *I* need the education.
So using real measuring equipment, is less reliable than "word of mouth" which gets tainted by media blitzes? Yes I need the education here.
Sprint does not work everywhere. Neither does verizon. *I* however have no problems with sprint, sprint service, and phone collection.
I also care about getting good service, and I assure you, you do not get "more" service than I do. There are tons of real science studies to prove my point, not a "public opinion".
You cannot win against logic.
Bottom line, if two companies, using the same technologies, and same towers, why would there be such a difference is service quality.
Side note: unless your a certified genius, you don't want to play the intelligence game with me.
3devious
Android Expert
I didn't turn it into a personal attack, I was responding to your question about why *I* was spending more money on phone service than you. Why would I be getting better service than you with the same technology? That sounds like something you might want to ask your customer service, not me.
You can scream and cry about numbers all you want, but what happens is what really matters. DELL tried to sell me a Precision server when I told them that I needed an XPS for my lab. They said "Well, the Precision has the Xeon processor blah blah blah..." I told them, "I have your Precisions and I have one XPS in my lab, it completes my renders fast than your Precisions, I don't care why. I want another XPS."
The PCWORLD collection was not even nominally scientific when they measure reliability by barely making a call. You may as well as not just ask people if they are happy with their service like JD Power did, but go ahead and ask people who've never heard of the carriers they are comparing.
You can scream and cry about numbers all you want, but what happens is what really matters. DELL tried to sell me a Precision server when I told them that I needed an XPS for my lab. They said "Well, the Precision has the Xeon processor blah blah blah..." I told them, "I have your Precisions and I have one XPS in my lab, it completes my renders fast than your Precisions, I don't care why. I want another XPS."
The PCWORLD collection was not even nominally scientific when they measure reliability by barely making a call. You may as well as not just ask people if they are happy with their service like JD Power did, but go ahead and ask people who've never heard of the carriers they are comparing.
3devious
Android Expert
You made my day.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Just by making a call huh? Well I guess you didn't read the study at all then
Your server analogy is flawed. There are a lot of things that would affect your render speed. Like bus, ram, type/speed of hard drive, system configurations, graphics card, the works. So, not valid.
Guess how many times I've had to talk to cs about coverage? None in the last 5 years.
So shall we stop beating the dead horse or will you continue with flawed studies and analogies?
QrafTee
Android Expert
I don't know about PC World or whatever, but in certain parts of California (away from the big cities), Verizon covers area where my Sprint friends have barely any signal if any at all. But to be fair even Verizon gets 1-3 bars in these areas (usually 1 less with EV than 1X).
So real measuring equipment can only go so far, it's personal experience as well. I don't know, maybe there's some sort of signal interfering substance in the ground or the mountains or whatever.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
But that's all relative. "Bars" are different on every device. Also since we use cdma, we can still make crystal clear phone calls and what have you even with one bar, or sometimes even no bars.
QrafTee
Android Expert
Well when I call my Sprint friends and they have zero bars and can't receive my call, it's safe to say that they have no service.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
I could say the same about any carrier. A lot of it has to do with devices as well.
3devious
Android Expert
Just by making a call huh? Well I guess you didn't read the study at all then
You are the one that does not read very well. I said "barely making a call" meaning they didn't do any real sustained call testing. Most calls are dropped (or so I hear because mine haven't been) after longer periods than they "tested." Let's not play the "did you even read it game..." I know you are too busy being a genius to read things that say things you don't want them to.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
didn't do any real sustained call testing. Most calls are dropped (or so I hear because mine haven't been) after longer periods than they "tested." Let's not play the "did you even read it game..." I know you are too busy being a genius to read things that say things you don't want them to.[/QUOTE]
Lol @ sprint dropping calls.
Stop drinkin dat big red kool aid sister.
Sounds like that sales guy got you real good.
Lol @ sprint dropping calls.
Stop drinkin dat big red kool aid sister.
Sounds like that sales guy got you real good.
QrafTee
Android Expert
I was just replying to your quote which said that bars are all relative. It is, but when the user doesn't have service, it just doesn't. So yes, sometimes zero bars means you can still make phone calls, but when I said zero bars for my Sprint friends I mean no service whatsoever.
I have been tempted to switch over to Sprint from Verizon solely because of the price, but when I had Sprint back in the late 90's and my service was hideous. Looking at their coverage map, the green pretty much follows the highway in my area.
IOWA,
I hope you are not thinking that you are the more intelligent of you and 3devious, your grammar is hideous. Use the correct "you're" next time.
IOWA,
I hope you are not thinking that you are the more intelligent of you and 3devious, your grammar is hideous. Use the correct "you're" next time.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
1.) In the late 90s most cell coverage was mediocre at best.
2.) Grammar is not an indicator of intelligence.
-how do you know english isn't my second language.
-this is the internet, not english class.
-I do quite a bit of posting from my phone. Correct grammar isn't worth the time.
- most people who cite "grammar" have nothing better to say.
- you don't have to be good at everything to be intelligent.
3.) 3devious didn't ask for your help, she's doing just fine on her own.
4.) Your tipping your hand bud, and it doesn't look good for you.
3devious
Android Expert
I might pay that for 100% guaranteed coverage, what's wrong with that? What would if matter if I did it for no other reason than to be able to say that I have 100% uptime? What would it matter?
I wouldn't kidnap you to Nevada, Covert_Death. I might drag you to the next Iron Maiden concert, but hopefully that wouldn't be torture and it wouldn't matter who got service because neither of us would be able to hear a thing. Besides, the thread is about the reason *I* pay, not how everyone else should, too.
I wouldn't kidnap you to Nevada, Covert_Death. I might drag you to the next Iron Maiden concert, but hopefully that wouldn't be torture and it wouldn't matter who got service because neither of us would be able to hear a thing. Besides, the thread is about the reason *I* pay, not how everyone else should, too.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
100% uptime would be great. And you made this thread to bash pcworld, and sprint. Just b/c its not good in your immediate area, like mentioned above, doesn't mean they don't have good coverage.
Phydeaux
Android Enthusiast
@IOWA. I'm convinced you are a paid Sprint representative. Why else would you bother trolling a Verizon forum?
All your misinformation about Sprint simply does not hold up under scrutiny.
I suppose you're going to say Consumer Reports is "fixed" also.
Note the * at the bottom, meaning it's entirely possible Sprint is as bad or worse than AT&T.
BTW, this survey included 50,000 readers across 26 cities.
In overall ratings Verizon was the best in every category. AT&T was the worst in every category but one (whether or not an issue was resolved, for that only Sprint was worse). The order was: Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and AT&T.
Consumer Reports also rated service by city. Verizon was top-rated in every city.
All your misinformation about Sprint simply does not hold up under scrutiny.
I suppose you're going to say Consumer Reports is "fixed" also.
Note the * at the bottom, meaning it's entirely possible Sprint is as bad or worse than AT&T.
BTW, this survey included 50,000 readers across 26 cities.
In overall ratings Verizon was the best in every category. AT&T was the worst in every category but one (whether or not an issue was resolved, for that only Sprint was worse). The order was: Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and AT&T.
Consumer Reports also rated service by city. Verizon was top-rated in every city.