NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: John Navas on 7 Aug 2010 11:00 On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 07:44:08 -0700, in <4c5d7133$0$1591$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >ZnU wrote: >> And then there's good old human irrationality. All carriers drop calls. >> If you've been told your carrier is worse than most, every time a call >> drops you'll say "Wow, AT&T sucks". If you've been told your carrier is >> better than most, on the other hand, when a call drops you'll probably >> just accept it as an inherent limitation of the technology. The catch is >> that this will hold true regardless of the _actual_ relative performance >> of the carriers in question. > >That's a good theory, but it can work the other way just as easily. The >AT&T user can say "well, I drop a lot of calls, but I knew going in that >by selecting AT&T that this was going to happen." The Verizon user can >say, "this is unacceptable, Verizon isn't supposed to drop calls." > >If you look at the independent testing regarding dropped calls, it does >show a far greater dropped call rate for AT&T, which jives with the >results of all the independent consumer surveys on dropped calls. > >"http://www.9to5mac.com/changewave-AT-T" What these surveys actually show is that the percentage of dropped calls on all carriers is quite small, probably on the order of the sampling error (which isn't disclosed, and could even be higher than the reported numbers). The presumption that this data is accurate to a tenth of a percent is statistical nonsense. >There's one more thing as well. In order to drop a call, you first have >to be able to have coverage in order to make call. I'm just finishing a >two week road trip where I went through California, Utah, Nebraska, >Iowas, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and > Oregon. There were many sections of these states where it's guaranteed >that Verizon will have a far higher dropped call rate than AT&T or >T-Mobile because Verizon had coverage, while AT&T and T-Mobile did not. >The Changewave testing does not take that into account,. Whereas that is just Steven nonsense. ;) -- John "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." -Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts.. for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
From: ZnU on 7 Aug 2010 14:16 In article <08sq56l9gi1u4hsrbecr24kadau1n7ph0i(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 05:51:44 -0400, in > <znu-1D9F45.05514407082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > >In article <050820101301232886%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > >> In article <lloydparsons-2C9285.10404005082010(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd > >> Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: > >> > >> > And for all the complaints about how good/bad AT&T is, > >> > there has been much conjecture that if any other provider had been given > >> > the iPhone exclusive, they would have had the same problems that AT&T > >> > has had with the useage patterns. > >> > >> except that with the explosion of android phones, you don't see very > >> many complaints about verizon, yet you still see complaints about at&t. > > > >This is not especially meaningful. The iPhone has faced _far_ more > >scrutiny than the confused mess of Android phones various carriers are > >now selling. > > I respectfully disagree -- Android has received enormous scrutiny. Antennagate demonstrates _very_ clearly that Apple is not remotely held to the same standard as other industry participants. It is simply unimaginable that any such controversy could have arisen with respect to any other specific handset model. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: ZnU on 7 Aug 2010 14:27 In article <4c5d7133$0$1591$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > ZnU wrote: > > In article <9ujm56t95g1uj1cg7vvbnhbs4e0qk9clcl(a)4ax.com>, > > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:35:33 -0600, in > >> <F1H6o.36539$F%7.30352(a)newsfe10.iad>, Todd Allcock > >> <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Exactly- so the ~60% of iPhone buyers forced to switch from Verizon, T- > >>> Mo, or Sprint, breaking up family plans or calling circles, and/or losing > >>> "free" M2M calls to friends/family still on their former service are > >>> going to be annoyed, even if AT&T service is perfectly adequate, or even, > >>> dare I say it, excellent. Given that 60 of iPhone customers switched to > >>> AT&T for an iPhone, I'd say a 27% "bitching rate" is pretty good. > >> I respectfully disagree -- it's quite bad by industry standards, and a > >> tribute to Apple marketing that it's not turned into a bigger issue. > > > > I think one of the issues here is that AT&T service is pretty bad in the > > New York and SF Bay Area, but pretty good in most of the rest of the > > country. > > > > People professionally covering technology issues are heavily > > concentrated precisely in New York and the SF Bay Area, so reports of > > AT&T's network problems are greatly exaggerated by the media. > > > > And then there's good old human irrationality. All carriers drop calls. > > If you've been told your carrier is worse than most, every time a call > > drops you'll say "Wow, AT&T sucks". If you've been told your carrier is > > better than most, on the other hand, when a call drops you'll probably > > just accept it as an inherent limitation of the technology. The catch is > > that this will hold true regardless of the _actual_ relative performance > > of the carriers in question. > > That's a good theory, but it can work the other way just as easily. The > AT&T user can say "well, I drop a lot of calls, but I knew going in that > by selecting AT&T that this was going to happen." The Verizon user can > say, "this is unacceptable, Verizon isn't supposed to drop calls." > > If you look at the independent testing regarding dropped calls, it does > show a far greater dropped call rate for AT&T, which jives with the > results of all the independent consumer surveys on dropped calls. > > "http://www.9to5mac.com/changewave-AT-T" I have _serious_ doubts about the ability of users to accurately report call drop rates to within a couple of percentage points over a 90 day period. > You see the same sort of theories regarding vehicle reliability, i.e. a > Toyota owner ignores problems while a GM owner complains about them, but > it's got the same flaw--a Toyota owner could be more likely to complain > about flaws, while a GM owner accepts them as routine. > > There's one more thing as well. In order to drop a call, you first have > to be able to have coverage in order to make call. I'm just finishing a > two week road trip where I went through California, Utah, Nebraska, > Iowas, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and > Oregon. There were many sections of these states where it's guaranteed > that Verizon will have a far higher dropped call rate than AT&T or > T-Mobile because Verizon had coverage, while AT&T and T-Mobile did not. > The Changewave testing does not take that into account,. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: nospam on 7 Aug 2010 15:21 In article <slrni5qenl.11i.dcferguson(a)akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > >> >I think a persistent setting is changed in the phone when activated. > >> > >> Yep. The flag to allow operation might also be on the SIM card. > >> Difficult to tell yet. > > > > it's not on the sim. > > Where is it, then? you may be confusing the two different activations. one is for the sim itself, and the carrier issues a phone number. the other is for the iphone/ipod/ipad, where an encryption key is loaded onto the device for any drm (videos, apps and any music that has not been upgraded). typically both occur at the same time (i.e., a new iphone) but they don't have to. if you restore an iphone to stock firmware, it will say 'connect to itunes' and if you put an already activated sim in it, it will then activate the phone. with an ipod touch, there is no sim and only the device activation occurs. > AT&T is certainly fussy about iPhone SIMs. Their computer won't > let them enable an iPhone data plan on any SIM older than the ones that > say "AT&T 3G" even though my wife's (Apple-)unlocked iPhone worked > just fine with an orange Cingular 64k SIM on either of several > other data plans. There is something on the new SIMs which AT&T > insists you must have with an iPhone, and what ever that is must > be of value to AT&T rather than the phone since the phone itself > is happy to operate with any SIM new enough to do 3G authentication. only the iphone 2g had special iphone sims. the iphone 3g and later will activate with any at&t sim.
From: Larry on 7 Aug 2010 16:38
Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote in news:i3i17c$mtj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > On 08-06-2010 16:59, ZnU wrote: >> I think one of the issues here is that AT&T service is pretty bad in >> the New York and SF Bay Area, but pretty good in most of the rest of >> the country. > > Pretty bad in northeast Indiana, northwest Arkansas, and eastern > Oklahoma. > OK in South Carolina, as long as you can SEE the interstate highway or are in the middle of one of our cities. Outside those immediate areas, 2 miles off the interstate, you get the same level of service as if your iPhone was on MARS....NONE. -- http://www.energyradio.jo/ English hiphop station in Ammon, Jordan?! Larry |