10 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

PsiCop

@Nick1693: This is the case ... only in the most technical sense, and only by a small amount. Wireless broadband throughput depends on many factors, though, including usage, as well as the size of the Internet pipe on the other side of the tower one is transmitting to. One particular problem for AT&T is that its towers are mostly all saturated. This means the connections they do have, are saturated. In turn, effectively, throughput for everyone on the saturated tower is reduced from what it could have been.

AT&T has pretty much failed to build their network up to the point where it can handle all the data traffic that iPhones and other fancy newfangled smartphones they sell, are using. Although they SAY they're adding capacity, they've been saying that for months now. I know lots of folks who live in metropolitan areas ... which ordinarily are well-served with cell-phone capacity ... whose AT&T smartphones phones are essentially bricks. They've been bricks for months, and will likely continue to be bricks.

So is EV-DO slower? In the strictest sense, yes, by a very small percentage ... but in practical terms, and depending on where you are, not only is it faster, it can be MUCH faster. To the point where AT&T's network doesn't work at all, but Verizon's does.

$\"user-pic\"$

colorfulRhyme

@Nick1693: I just bought the Droid this weekend, and I've been testing it against my friend's iPhone... the Droid has been significantly faster, and gets better service.

He complains that all the areas that Verizon covers is useless areas that no one lives in... even so, still can't top the speed I have on my phone.

$\"user-pic\"$

Verucalise (Est.February2008)

@colorfulRhyme: Hey, I LIVE IN THOSE AREAS!!

$\"user-pic\"$

brain_grenade

@Nick1693: Depends on your physical location and the device...but technically speaking, this is true. Not by much..but it's true. Then again, Sprint has 4G coverage on a few streets in downtown Philly. Doesn't mean the speed outweighs coverage.

$\"user-pic\"$

NightSteel

@Nick1693:

I believe part of this hinges on the definition of 3G. I've seen posts in other places discussing the technical merits of the various transmission standards, and one suggested that some portion of Verizon's 3G coverage is of a slower type that may technically qualify as 3G, but is commonly referred to as 2.5G. I don't know enough about cell phone networks to say, myself, but it's possible that that is the case, yes.

$\"user-pic\"$

workingnonstop

@NightSteel: It's my understanding that that argument was hinging on Verizon's EVDO Rev. 0 speeds. ATT argued that EDGE (2.5G) was almost as fast as EVDO Rev. 0. On a purely theoretical and technical basis, it is, but EDGE speeds in reality are around dialup, whereas Verizon's EVDO Rev. 0 still provided speeds upwards of .5mbit/sec (and faster in some locations). ATT was basically saying that Verizon was taking credit for EVDO Rev. 0 as 3G, when they thought that it should not be considered such.

Verizon responded by saying that its entire network has been upgraded to EVDO Rev. A, which is, without a doubt, 3G anyway. So ATT just had false information.

$\"user-pic\"$

destruktolux

@NightSteel: The technical term for the communication platform used by both Verizon and Sprint is IS-2000 (aka CDMA2000) which includes basic 3G voice and data and faster EVDO service (you can look all of this up on Wikipedia if you want to know the details). Verizon's network is definitely primarily a 3G network.

AT&T by comparison is largely built on a GSM network. GSM itself is primarily 2G, however this has been upgraded to include GPRS (a 2.5G packet data delivery service for GSM) and EDGE, which is 3G voice and data service for GSM devices.

Really, Verizon has a point. Sprint and Verizon are FAR more invested in their 3G networks than AT&T is invested in 3G. I'm a tad more familiar with Sprint, and in fact Sprint is discontinuing its is-95 2G data network, as I understand, largely because it's not used by anyone anymore. I'm guessing Verizon is comparing its' 3G (CDMA2000) network coverage with AT&T's EDGE network coverage only, but there's some technical validity in this. IMHO, that's on AT&T for building a network that's backward compatible with 2G service.

(And there's your technical answer).

$\"user-pic\"$

soloudinhere

@destruktolux: A few corrections: GRPS is 2G, and EDGE is 2.5G-- UMTS/HSPA is the 3G standard used by AT&T.

This is all a question of theory-- on paper, UMTS is faster than EV-DO Rev. A. This is much like how in theory USB2 is faster than Firewire 400-- it's a question of maximum throughput rates versus real-world useage rates, and connection stability. The maximum speed of UMTS is faster than that of EV-DO rev. A, but if you never get the maximum speed, it's moot, isn't it? Add in the fact that AT&T's UMTS network is so thoroughly overloaded with the iPhone, and there is truly no comparison.

My coworkers and I have iPhones, and I also just got a Droid-- We did a browser race over 3g, each of us loading the NY Times, and a droid owner beat the iPhone owners even after mistyping the link and having to get to the page through a google search. The iPhones were consistently blown away in these informal tests.

$\"user-pic\"$

jvanbrecht

@destruktolux: Incorrect, Edge is considered 2.5g, not 3G. GSM is the over arching architecture, as part of the original architecture GPRS was the data pipe.

In theory, Edge is capable of much more, and ATT had been milking that plan to upgrade for years before they decided to move to UMTS (3G), which Verizon had been upgrading to EVDO during ATT's milking of Edge.

For the record, both UMTS and EVDO rev A are similar in theoretical speeds, the problem is that ATT is over subscribing towers causing many of the problems current customers see. Not enough backhaul from the towers to provide sufficient data services for the number of users connected to them.

UMTS however is superior, in the fact that you can use both data and Voice at the same time, not so with Verizons current CDMA2000/EVDO network.

LTE is also currently deploying LTE (test beds in Seattle and Boston I believe), which is backwards compatable with both CDMA2000/EVDO/GSM/Edge/CDMA/UMTS/bunch_of_others. I hate both ATT and Verizon, but I had verizon slightly less then ATT, when they go full scale LTE, I will switch.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

@Nick1693: Last summer, the BGR conducted speedtests of the big 4 using it's readers all over the country as as guinea pigs. It's hardly scientific but it should give you an idea.

AT&T
Verizon

$\"user-pic\"$

D

@Nick1693: I just jumped ship from the iPhone on AT&T to the Droid on Verizon. This was a particular irony for me, since I paid to break my contract with Verizon many years back to defect to Cingular (which, by the way was great before AT&T gobbled them up), and now I paid to break my contract to go back. I can tell you that a.) AT&T's coverage (both 3G and EDGE) in Denver is so lousy, I think Verizon's maps might be generous and b.) the 3G on Verizon is not only solid and reliable, but soooo much faster than AT&T's! I rarely even need to turn on wifi, even for the biggest downloads!

$\"user-pic\"$

CRCError1970

@Nick1693: I wouldn't be concerned so much as whether Verizon's 3G is slower that AT&T's 3G... Why? I'd rather have a larger coverage area on a slightly slower network than be stuck with AT&T's EDGE network.

AT&T's 3G coverage area is so small that any increased speed you might get isn't really an advantage.

$\"user-pic\"$

G.O.B.: Come on!

It sounds like a school-yard brawl.

\"Hey AT&T, yo' mama so ugly...\"
- \"Meanie!\" >:(
\"Truth hurts.\"

I really do find it amusing that AT&T is so butt-hurt.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Inglix_the_Mad

@G.O.B.: Come on!: As a former Verizon, and current AT&T customer, both can rot in h*ll. The wife HAD to have an iPhone which meant AT&T, and yes their service sucks. Then again my \"coverage\" with Verizon wasn't much better unless you like the \"Can you hear me now? Oh sh*t we lost connection!\" joke.

Miss my Sprint Razr
Always made calls
Rarely ever dropped a call.
Tough
Clean design

Heck, it just worked, which is more than can be said of either AT&T or Verizon.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jeff-er-ee

@Inglix_the_Mad: My wife \"had\" to have an iPhone. I said, \"Okay, to support the monthly payments, we'll sell the Mazda.\" She suddenly didn't \"have\" to have that iPhone.

(I'm exaggerating a bit...she saw the logic immediately, but she really, REALLY wanted that phone!)

Been with T-Mo for 4 years now, after switching when Cingular (now AT&T) pissed me off one time too many. They're not perfect, but they've yet to really make me mad.

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

SNAP!
Oh no they di'int.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@diasdiem: They got served.

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

@pecan 3.14159265:

$\"user-pic\"$

G.O.B.: Come on!

@diasdiem: Oh yes dey di' bitch, and wut???

$\"user-pic\"$

AK47 - Now with longer screen name!

Ouch. Given that I've seen nothing during this saga that indicates AT&T is arguing the accuracy of the maps (\"misleading\" but not \"false\"), I'd say Verizon is 100% right: AT&T sued because Verizon's ads are true and the truth hurts.

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

kexline

@AK47: Agreed, and I like the Mark Twain quote upthread. I've seen a few of these commercials, and they are abundantly clear: They repeatedly mention \"3G coverage\", not just \"coverage\", and they talk primarily about web functions. AT&T is grasping at straws -- my bet is that they couldn't find grounds for a copyright lawsuit but just couldn't bring themselves to walk away from such a direct attack.

$\"user-pic\"$

David in Brasil

@AK47: Basically, AT&T is saying that I'm too stupid to look at Verizon's 3G service map and interpret it correctly.

As Mark Twain said, \"When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that howls is the one you hit\".

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha

@AK47: I have heard from some tech journalists that the following are potentially at issue:

1) The average person does not know the difference between voice, 2G, Edge or 3G, all they know is if they have service or not. While ATT's 3G service is apparently limited to major metropolitan areas, they do have Edge coverage throughout most of the US, so while the map may be accurate, to the average consumer it hurts the bottom line.
2) ATT when you look at ALL of their data coverage appears to have more coverage than Verizon, so if you were in one of those areas where you may or may not get Verizon's 3G coverage, but you would definately get ATT Edge coverage, most people would take the slow edge over nothing.
2) The Verizon map is not 100% accurate when compared to their website[www.verizonwireless.com] (look at the lack of coverage in Central NY and Central PA, as well as northern MN and WI

$\"user-pic\"$

rickhamilton620

@Rachacha: I'm in central PA and most definetly have VZW 3G

$\"user-pic\"$

chocobo

@Rachacha: It's true that it's a problem that most consumers really don't know what 3G means. It is less than perfectly fair for Verizon to use this advertisement, because it will confuse some people into thinking AT&T doesn't even work in many states.

But from a legal standpoint, AT&T has no case. You simply cannot restrict a company from advertising a major selling feature of its products just because some dumb people might get confused.

But there are always dumb people who will get confused. If you were able to successfully sue over that, it would become ridiculous. Every computer maker would sue every competitor, because a dumb person might think the competitor's 3Ghz single core PC is faster than their own 2.8GHz quad core.

The end result would be the death of all advertising. It would be impossible for anyone to put out an ad without getting sued... hmm. OK now I'm really hoping that AT&T wins this.

$\"user-pic\"$

hotdogsunrise

@Rachacha: I have to argue with your second number 2. The region I think you are referring to is not central NY. It's the Adirondacks. The reason there is no coverage up there is because locals do not want cell phone or any sort of towers to ruin the beauty of the parks. (Regardless of how many people die during the winters with no phone service... but that's another story.)

Central NY is the greater Syracuse area.

$\"user-pic\"$

Rick91981

@hotdogsunrise:

The Adirondacks does actually have coverage on Verizon in many areas. It is not a super strong signal but in most cases it is good enough to make calls without issue.

I vacation in the Adirondacks every summer and have no issues in the cabin I stay in. For anyone familiar with the area, the location i use it most is about a 1/2 hr north of Lake George.

$\"user-pic\"$

quail

@hotdogsunrise: And that's a true head scratcher, the thing about not wanting towers. The cell towers can be built to look like trees, you wouldn't even notice them. But there's that freaking 'old guard' of baby boomers who've never gotten off of their mountain to see what's out in the real world.

Give it 10 years and the coverage will creep into the mountains.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sepp_TB

@quail: As a cell user now living in Syracuse but originally from the Adirondacks, I feel I should weigh in =) The towns in the ADKs have historically banned cell towers for aesthetic reasons, but lately have been changing their tune. Those long, cold unpopulated roads are where you need cell coverage the most, and residents and environmentalists are finally realizing that, and it only took a few of the deaths that hotdogsunrise mentioned to bring that about!

The 'towers that look like trees' are hideous by the way. They look nothing like trees, especially when mixed in with real trees. They're twice as tall and the wrong colors, but some people seem to like them. They're putting up those and a mix of normal towers as well. And its all Verizon. Everyone in my family that lives up there has switched to Verizon because they finally have coverage (And yes, they had cell phones before, even without coverage at their homes, because people do drive outside the park very often.) You'll notice the blank area in the Verizonwireless Website map is considerably smaller than the actual Adirondack Park now.

Syracuse has full AT&T coverage, though it is very spotty. I get great service at work in my glass and steel building, and 2 miles away at my home sitting on the highest point in the city district get 1 bar and dropped calls and downloading a 30 second voicemail can take minutes.

And one last comment, to hotdogsunrise's comment \"...is because locals do not want cell phone or any sort of towers...\" , not exactly. Full time residents would for the most part have been fine putting towers up long ago, its the seasonal residents that only live in the park during the summer months but register to vote there that typically block things like that, and make modern living concessions so their summer homes can look how they want, at the expense of those who stay there full time.

$\"user-pic\"$

hotdogsunrise

@Sepp_TB: Thanks for the reply. The news in Albany portrayed the anti-cell phone towers in the Adirondacks as if it was everyone up there versus everyone in \"the city\" (Albany). I really appreciate your comment, because now I can tell people when it comes up in coversation how true residences feel about it. And it's interesting that it's the seasonal people that DON'T want it.
Thanks!

$\"user-pic\"$

Dyscord

@Eat A Peach: I get what you're saying. The blank spots on each map show no 3G converage. But to be fair, it's not verizon's fault that AT&T's network isn't all 3G like theirs is. The fact of the matter is that the maps show 3G to 3G coverage. If anything, AT&T need to stop pissing around and upgrade their network instead of whining about Verizon's superior one.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@Rachacha: That's the thing. I get 3G on AT&T nearly everywhere in DC. The only places I get stuck on Edge are inside certain buildings, and that's more because of the building itself. Even in the metro tunnels, I get 3G.

$\"user-pic\"$

MeCatLikesMeHamSanwich

@pecan 3.14159265: Yeah, AT&T have repeaters in the tunnels themselves for Metro. However, if you go anywhere outside of D.C. the coverage sucks for AT&T. Forget about it if you travel north of the Woodrow Wilson bridge or South of Springfield on I-95.

$\"user-pic\"$

tsukiotoshi

@AK47: From my experience the maps are probably pretty accurate. I often have a hard time getting 3G service (or any service) with my At&T phone while my friends with Verizon never seem to have trouble, even on the Metro. It might technically be misleading, but I doubt it's false.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eat A Peach

The whole crux of the pissing match is just that: these maps are NOT apples to apples comparisons. The blank/white areas on the Verizon map indicates areas where there is no service (as Verizon's network it all 3G). The blank/white areas on the AT&T map are not areas where there is no service at all, but rather where there is either 2.5G or Edge service. The shaded areas are apple to apple comparison, but the white area is not and that's what the viewer is comparing on these maps (lack of colored areas on the maps). I know that there are lots of unhappy people out there on AT&T (I'm just not one of them, though), but I do think that AT&T should be spending more of their profits from the most popular selling smartphone on updating and expanding their 3G and the upcoming 4G technologies. If their network was updated in areas of heavy smartphone useage (i.e. NY and SF for just a sampling of congested areas), I don't think their customers would be so easily swayed to another carrier. Since I don't have any problems with my coverage in my area, these ads don't even faze me in the least except to remind me that AT&T has the most popular smartphone exclusively to their network and I'm lucky that I don't have to switch carriers to have one :o)~

November 23, 2009 5:31 PM

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

dieselmachine

@Eat A Peach:

The white areas of the map are not indicated anything. You cannot argue about the meaning of the empty space in a graph. Seriously, this is open and shut. They say 'here is 3g coverage', and then show 3g coverage. Because color is defined as '3g', white areas mean \"not 3g\". It's a basic tautology, and only a moron could misinterpret that map.

\"these ads don't even faze me in the least except to remind me that AT&T has the most popular smartphone exclusively to their network and I'm lucky that I don't have to switch carriers to have one\"

The thing is, those of us not using iphones care about the actual phone's abilities and the service it gets, not \"how popular it is\" as you conveniently pointed out.

$\"user-pic\"$

vladthepaler

@Eat A Peach:

The caption at the bottom makes it clear that white areas are areas without 3G coverage, not areas with no coverage. There's nothing misleading about the graphic.

$\"user-pic\"$

kmw2

@Eat A Peach: Of course it's an apples to apples comparison. If one car dealership has 100 new cars, and another has 30 new cars and 70 used cars, the first dealership can claim in absolute factual and ethical accuracy that it has more new cars than its competitor, because it isn't making a claim to total number of cars. That's the same thing that's going on here - Verizon very clearly is arguing about its 3G coverage compared to AT&T's 3G coverage, not anything else.

$\"user-pic\"$

jvanbrecht

@kmw2: The difference being that every person on the planet knows the difference between used cars, and new cars....

Go out on the street and ask the avg user the difference between 3g, 2.5g, 2g networks, or UMTS, EVDO rev a, or Edge, EVDO rev 0..... 99% of them will have no clue what you are talking about, to them, they either have reception, and the phone works, or they don't. When you start throwing maps out there that show huge areas of no coverage, the avg person is not going to think, oh well, they have other network technologies in those areas, no they will think that oh crap, ATT does not work anywhere outside major metro areas...

That is what ATT is bitching about.

Now if verizon removed the map, and used % and referred to what they were comparing as next generation data services.. that might go over slightly better, although I am sure ATT woudl find something to complain about that as well

November 23, 2009 5:31 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

dieselmachine

@jvanbrecht:

Wow, how funny that their business model, which consisted entirely of selling an over-hyped phone to fashionable morons, is about to be destroyed because those same people weren't smart enough to even understand what the '3g' on their phone actually meant.

It's kind of a delicious situation, really. Companies are really good at talking shit, but once someone breaks out the graphs the true shit-talkers throw a tantrum. People were scared of Ross Perot for the same reason.

$\"user-pic\"$

PunditGuy

@Eat A Peach:

these maps are NOT apples to apples comparisons

They clearly state \"3G coverage.\" The blank areas on both maps are where the respective carrier has no 3G coverage. That is totally an apples-to-apples comparison.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

@PunditGuy: +1. Came to post the exact same thing.

$\"user-pic\"$

XTC46

@Eat A Peach: They are not comparing overall coverage, only 3G...if all of verizons network is 3G then they show all of that coverage, it just happens to look really bad becasue many people dont understand that there are differnt connection types, but thats how advertising works.

$\"user-pic\"$

iamlost26

@Eat A Peach: You have 15 red apples and 20 green apples. I have 20 red apples. True or false: I have more red apples than you.

$\"user-pic\"$

DJ-Pie-Safety

Is it just me or does Verizon seem like the BWM/Audi/Lexus of phone companies? I hardly know anyone in my age range (20-25) that has a Verizon phone, partially because they demand a high deposit. Even when I sold Verizon at Radioshack years ago I didn't suggest it foremost because most everyone would either have a GIGANTIC deposit or not be interested in their phones. When Radioshack dropped Verizon and picked up Sprint right after the Nextel merge it wasn't much better though, with most people having had bad experiences with Sprint screwing them over.

14 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ktetch

@DJ-Pie-Safety: It depends where you go. We had a PAYG Verizon phone for 9 months (a pantech flip). When we went to get a contract one with verizon, we went to a store, they wanted $700.

We went to walmart the next day, they wanted $0 deposit. We got two VX8300s there and then. That was april 07.

Shop around (DUH!)

$\"user-pic\"$

Dyscord

@DJ-Pie-Safety: My best friend has Verizon. Possibly because he got it through a family plan. A few people I know also use it. But I won't. Or rather I cant. I know they have a great network and I would love to use it. However I will NOT pay $1,000 for a deposit ON TOP of the price of the phone.

$\"user-pic\"$

ExtraCelestial

@DJ-Pie-Safety: I mostly agree. Like Tubal said, coverage is also a factor so a lot of younger people DO have Verizon but it's mostly because it's the only carrier that gets a signal consistently throughout their area.
However I agree that Verizon is definitely not marketed towards the younger crowd. Their super expensive text message bundling and boring phones are definitely geared towards an older, more business minded customer.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

@ExtraCelestial: I have $5/month unlimited text and picture messaging tagged onto my Verizon plan.

$\"user-pic\"$

ElizabethD

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

Same. Overall we have been very pleased with Verizon. When we first got cell phones, we went with AT&T, but quickly dumped them when we realized the limited calling range.

$\"user-pic\"$

soloudinhere

@DJ-Pie-Safety: Deposits are standard fare across the board. There are an awful lot of people who put down $250-$750 deposits with AT&T to get the iPhone.

I've never had to pay one, and neither has anyone I know directly--could it be that people with crappy credit were shopping for phones at Radio Shack?

Verizon does have crappier phones. I'm hoping they start taking some exclusives away from Sprint-- goodness knows they have a better customer base to support handset exclusives. I always wonder why sprint gets all the good CDMA phones first when their service is just awful.

$\"user-pic\"$

rambo76098

@DJ-Pie-Safety:
I'm 22 and almost all my family and friends have Verizon, with the exception of my best friend, who has AT&T because of his Radioshack employee discount.

I don't see anything wrong with those maps, he almost always has Edge, and very little of that even. My regular dumb phone (Voyager) is faster on the internet than his HTC tilt due to Edge's slow speeds.

$\"user-pic\"$

DangerMouth

@DJ-Pie-Safety: I guess that makes my pre-paid T-mobile a Yugo ;)

$\"user-pic\"$

kexline

@DangerMouth: Nah, I think MetroPCS is closer to Yugo -- or at least, it was before they had roaming agreements. You can't take a Yugo too far from home, right?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@DJ-Pie-Safety: I've never put down a deposit. I had Verizon for years before switching to AT&T this year, and I'm 25. The deposit isn't a Verizon-specific thing. AT&T looks at your credit history as well, especially with smartphones. A 20 year old who doesn't have a good credit history or doesn't have much of one at all may get slammed with a deposit. As such, people tend to group in similar peer types so if you know a lot of people who had to put down deposits, it's indicative of the peer group you had (younger, unestablished at the time).

$\"user-pic\"$

FaustianSlip

@pecan 3.14159265: The deposit isn't Verizon specific, but when I was selling phones from multiple carriers, they were by far the strictest about who they would and would not allow to sign a contract without a deposit. People would be able to sign up for AT&T with no problems at all, then get nailed with a gigantic deposit from Verizon.

T-Mobile, of course, would take just about anyone so long as they had a pulse- and even that was probably optional.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@FaustianSlip: Yeah, T-Mobile would probably sign up the family dog. Then again, T-Mobile also skews a little younger, so it makes sense that they're more lax about the process.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

@DJ-Pie-Safety: I've had Verizon since I got a cell phone back when I was in school. Back then I paid slightly more than people on other systems for the much better coverage (I traveled a lot on rural highways).

$\"user-pic\"$

mrscoach

@DJ-Pie-Safety: The only people in the town I live in without Verizon phones are recent move-ins who plan on moving out soon. Like a teacher that leaves at the end of the year. Why? Because Verizon is the ONLY cell service we can get here, other than pay-as-you-go Tracphone. And we've only had service here for about 18 months, before that it was one big dead zone.

$\"user-pic\"$

Tubal

@DJ-Pie-Safety: They're known for:

A) Best Coverage
B) High Cost
C) Sucky Phones

I think they've done alot to get rid of C in the last month or so, but they're still thought of as the highest cost, and nickel and diming you to death.

$\"user-pic\"$

Wriz

@DJ-Pie-Safety: I guess it depends on where you live. Here in Upstate NY, almost everyone I know uses Verizon. This is partly due to the fact that other carriers' coverage isn't quite as good in the mountains. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that many people got Verizon phones because it's what their friends use. Their parents aren't stupid, they choose the cheapest plans possible that have unlimited \"In-Network\" calls and texts.

$\"user-pic\"$

johnny-99

AT&T better start improving their network if they want to compete. Newspaper reports say that dropping 30% of your AT&T cell calls is common in metro areas like San Francisco and New York City. Maybe those customers put up with that bad joke because the iPhone was so much better than everyone else. Some of these new Android phones are awfully good competitors now.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

Here is AT&T's official rebuttal.

It's filled with dirty lies and half truths.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha

@dohtem: Would you care to clarify what you believe to be dirty lies and half truths?

The only statements that I can not verify are the coverage of their different data networks, but in looking at population density maps of the US, and the ATT data maps, the statistics appear to be pretty close.

$\"user-pic\"$

SkuldChan

@Rachacha: AT&T actually lists where I live as solid blue - which means full 3G coverage which is a total lie. It doesn't work in my office (zero bars - I can't even receive or make regular calls!), which is in the middle of town. I had to switch the phone to umts only mode because the constant switching back and forth between both modes was draining my phones battery.

Even in EDGE - dropped data, rarely loads websites at all - overall its a poor experience. While I'm one of the 300 million being served I don't like it and am planning on switching soon.

$\"user-pic\"$

ohenry

@dohtem: Wow, that's really amazing. Not even so much about lies or half-truths, but their response is completely irrelevant. They never actually say \"Our 3G coverage covers more areas\". They basically admit that their coverage isn't as wide. They try to play the whole \"It's not as expansive but it's better quality\", which may or may not be true, but isn't the point of Verizon's ads.

$\"user-pic\"$

doctor_cos wants you to remain calm

@dohtem: And you can back this up by...

$\"user-pic\"$

mantari

Best commercial preview I've ever read:

The second holiday television commercial, \"Misfits,\" is set on the \"Island of Misfit Toys\" - a place for imperfect toys. (See id. ¶ 40, Ex. 17.) A smartphone appears on the island, surprising the toys and prompting one to ask \"What are you doing here? You can download apps and browse the web!\" (See id.) Another adds, \"Yeah, people will love you!\" (See id.) The Blue AT&T 3G Coverage Map then appears above the smartphone, causing the toys to realize that the device uses AT&T for its 3G service, and to reply \"Ohhh….\" (See id.) One toy adds \"[y]ou're gonna fit right in here. Ha, ha, ha, ha….\" (See id.)

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

@mantari: I think it got posted on Consumerist sometime in the last two weeks too!

$\"user-pic\"$

jdmba

AT&T is ticked that Verizon is implying that they are coverage maps, and not just 3G maps. Funny thing ... I left Verizon (the only cell company I had ever known) slightly under 2 years ago, while my wife stayed. I have 0 signal (3G or otherwise) most of the time in L.A. and she, standing next to me, has plenty. Based on experience, I think those maps reflect signal, and not just 3G. Go get em Verizon ... I'll be back to you soon enough.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ohenry

@jdmba: I believe (per previous posts) that Verizon's entire network is 3G, though I could be wrong.

$\"user-pic\"$

Omali

AT&T: \"Is that the entire coverage area?\"
Verizon: \"You want answers?\"
AT&T: \"I want the truth!\"
Verizon: \"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Because deep down in places you don't talk about, you want me on that map, you need me on that map! Where we use big words like coverage, generation, fastest, and 3G. You use those words as advertising porn. I have no words for a man who rises and sleeps, and gets his phone calls secretly under my plan, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just dropped the suit and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a Blackberry Pearl at your local Verizon store and stand post.\"
Judge: \"Did you color that map red?\"
Verizon: \"YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!\"

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Dyscord

@Omali: Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful!

$\"user-pic\"$

JayCor

@Omali: clap. clap. clap. Bravo! Heart added.

$\"user-pic\"$

lihtox

I was struck by the fact that the entire state of West Virginia seems to be missing from both maps; I get that rural areas aren't going to be covered, but an entire state? It's particularly prominent in the Verizon map.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

kmw2

@lihtox: Most of Vermont has only recently begun to gain 3G coverage as well.

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha

@lihtox: West Virginia generally only has coverage near the Interstates and some of the major metro areas. Unfortunately because of the terrain and the low population density, it is extremely difficult and costly to put up towers...afterall, would you spend several hundred thousand dollars to put up an antenna and all of the support equipment so that one person living in middle of nowhere West Virginia can talk on a cell phone.

$\"user-pic\"$

frodolives35

@Rachacha: Hey I used to put hotels on Baltic Ave so why not.

$\"user-pic\"$

Luckie

@Rachacha: You're right. I am from a backwoods West Virginia \"community\" where the nearest post office is a forty five minute ride away. It would be ridiculous to provide service in that area, due mostly to the cost of putting up towers on the tops of mountains... then you have to worry about the coal companies blasting nearby and shaking the crap out of your tower and resulting in frequent costly repairs, or even the coal companies buying up the land pretty much at will, and you no longer have a place for that nice cell tower. And all that for two or three people in range with a cell phone, and out of three people, how many would choose you as their carrier?

I don't see the situation changing too soon, either.

$\"user-pic\"$

kexline

@Luckie: Bhahaha ... I was last in WV in about 2001, when it wasn't surprising that there was no service, and I hadn't given it much thought since then. Hm. It would be most efficient to place towers on peaks. (That way you'd get TWO towns, right?.) And you don't want eyesores, so you'd require the cell companies to put up those crazy tree-shaped towers. And then the coal companies would inevitably cut the towers down, either by accident or by \"accident\".

$\"user-pic\"$

bjcolby15

I was traveling from Boston to Maine and it seems I can't get 3G in Boston (unless I travel in one of the cavernous MBTA tunnels that cut out AT&T service), but on my way up to and throughout Maine, I had 3G service - and it was nice to see pages load in much quicker time.

Maybe it's because too many freakin' cell phone towers and companies interfere with the 3G signal in Boston?

$\"user-pic\"$

mbgrabbe

Thank god I live in that thick patch of blue (and red) in the north east...

Seriously though, I love this. This is the good stuff that comes out of capitalism and competition - big bad companies exposing eachother's weaknesses.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Coelacanth

@mbgrabbe: Until they merge.

$\"user-pic\"$

putzinaround

yeah i would like to know how verizon shows 3g coverage in montana. there is no cell coverage in many parts of the west, but by verizons map not only do they have cell coverage, but its 3g! yeah right.

$\"user-pic\"$

sonneillon

I think Verizon's next commercial needs to be about how bad they burned AT&T and that they are totally butt hurt over it. Then maybe come up with a map for that with a human outline.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

theblackdog

@sonneillon: Maybe the CEO of Verizon can throw the AT&T Lawsuit into a pizza oven.

$\"user-pic\"$

Silversmok3

Forget 3G.

If Verizon wants to kick AT&T in the balls,just talk about customer service. I dont care how bad Verizon is, ATT customer care is so horrible they really would sue Verizon to keep that on the down low.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@Silversmok3: I have the complete reverse experience. Verizon customer service has been the crappiest service I have ever had contact with. AT&T, however, has been pure awesome.

$\"user-pic\"$

VermilionSparrow

@pecan 3.14159265: Well, everybody complains about Sprint's customer service, but I haven't had a bad experience yet, and I've been using them since 1994...

$\"user-pic\"$

FaustianSlip

This is quite a change from the way Verizon reps were behaving less than a year ago when I was selling cell phones. They literally wouldn't even mention the iPhone by name. At one training session, the rep giving the presentation said, \"Well... we all know about that phone that AT&T is selling, but soon the Blackberry Storm will bring Verizon back into the picture!\" I was embarrassed for them.

As far as the suit goes, all I can say is that as someone living in Maine, I've had no problems with AT&T reception, nor have any of the (numerous) friends I have that own iPhones. That's not to say that there aren't issues or that AT&T doesn't need to start expanding ASAP, but my experience with them has been positive. Y'know, for a cell phone company.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@FaustianSlip: When we paid the ETF to get off Verizon and go to AT&T, they asked us why we were canceling, and we were truthful: we were doing it because of the iPhone. The person on the other end got extremely terse and started arguing with us that the Blackberry Storm was just as good. We laughed and said \"no thanks, just let us out of our contract.\" They're desperate now. The rep kept trying to prolong the ordeal by offering us free months, and free phones, and we were like \"but you don't carry the iPhone, so no thanks.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

leprofie

I'm an AT&T customer ... and satisfied. The Verizon ads are genius. It presents the fact of 3G coverage in a fun way that is pretty effective. What they've done is alter perception. That's effective because perception is more important than fact.

My wife uses AT&T's best response to the ads all the time. When I'm using an app on my iPhone she says, \"There's no map for that app!\"

$\"user-pic\"$

milty45654

All I know is when we were in the blue ridge mountains a month ago, My Verizon device fell back from EV-DO to 1xrtt and my voice/data was still working.
Every Iphone that was on the trip, was a useless brick.
No voice, no data..completely useless. We had to drive 20 miles into town so they could all use their fanboi phones. Verizon FTW

$\"user-pic\"$

gaming09

I have att I live in NY which is supposed to be fully 3g but my block is a deadspot for 3g service, i use edge almost always, havnt used 3g in months

$\"user-pic\"$

h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Me too. I was with Sprint all through college and a little after. I switched to Verizon a few years ago and I've been really pleased. Sprint had a lot of issues in my area, and at one point my phone started roaming while I was in my kitchen. With Verizon I've never had issues, even when I go up to the research site on Lake Erie where I never used to get reception. I'm relatively easy to please when it comes to the actual phone, and I love my EnV2.

$\"user-pic\"$

Fo34rd

How about all the AT&T consumers sue them over their false claims of being the carrier with the least dropped calls. I have a phone that is basically worthless because of all of AT&T dead areas...Just because they get around this by saying the least reported dropped calls doesn't mean they have the best service. More Bars in more areas just means you are trapped behind bars when your house is a designated dead zone by them...

$\"user-pic\"$

Loias calls you out if you can't RTFA

B-U-R-N!!

$\"user-pic\"$

PLATTWORX

I think both Verizon and AT&T can be evil empires, but I find this amusing. I can say I am on Verizon and hear lots of complaints from my friends with smartphones on AT&T due to network issues.

I just got a Motorola Droid from Verizon last weekend and have had not a single issue with the web, etc.

I suggest AT&T start fixing their network and shutup.

$\"user-pic\"$

ZukeZuke

Freakin awesome response!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

zerok00l420

@ZukeZuke:
HAHAHAHA THE TRUTH HURTS!!!!!
ATT can suck the ipod down its gullet.

$\"user-pic\"$

ringo00

I heard about an interesteing solution to having an Iphone with verizon service. Buy an IPod touch and a verizon MiFi. Affix the MiFi to the back of the touch and run the skype app full time. My verizon sales rep told me one of his corporate customers did that.

$\"user-pic\"$

baristabrawl

And I still have AT&T. I had Verizon, but it wasn't all that great in the Denver Metro Area and the store was unable to assist me in acheiving more bars in more places...wait, can you hear me now? Wait...am I confusing my ads?

$\"user-pic\"$

trujunglist

man, I wish AT&T had better 3G coverage. hell, coverage in general. hell, not randomly dropping my calls or not even allowing the phone to receive calls and sending them straight to VM would be a fucking great start. stop whining like a little bitch and fix your network you greedy fucks.