said by Mattie_B :

Its not a contradiction. You obviously can't read very well. I'll highlight the key point of his statement and see if you can figure out what he is saying. Your attempt to flame ilikeme has only made you look stupid.

Hint: It has to do with the word "but".

They might have more 3G coverage than At&t right now, but their coverage in general sucks compared to At&t.

said by Nerdtalker :

No offense, but if I have trouble reading, you apparently had trouble replying, since I'm not ptrowski . I haven't flamed anyone, but on a related topic I've noticed that generally the first person to mention flaming is the one who ends up fanning a conversation in such a direction. Something to consider. ::shrug::

Regardless, my point still stands. Coverage is either good, or bad. You can't argue that company X has more coverage, and then turn around and say their coverage in general sucks compared to AT&T. I can't help it that you blatantly don't understand what's painfully contradictory about that sentence, I can't.

I understand that the point he was trying to make was that Sprint/Verizon/CDMA US Carriers have broader/wider/bigger areas of coverage (notice how I was specific in this context, "more" is so wholly lacking in specificity), and that he's trying to argue that what 3G coverage AT&T does have is somehow better.

Honestly, that argument doesn't even stand on it's own. As I said before and repeat now, go back and look at the testing other AT&T users have done with the same hardware and compare speeds and signal strength; it simply isn't as good. Again, I know from looking over that map myself that it was apparent that backhauls weren't up to handling HSDPA speeds anywhere near 1.7 megabits, people were doing testing with marginal signal or worse, and I was generally appalled at the test results in my area. GSM in the US in general simply isn't as rolled out or deployed as the more mature CDMA here. It isn't something that you can stand and argue about, it's pure fact. You can wish all day long, it's just truth.

Additionally, so many of these arguments stand or fall based on purely anecdotal evidence. Think about how many pointless, frivolous, and worthless "I had bad signal here. You have bad signal there. My friend says he gets dropped calls. The provider map says I have 3G coverage somewhere I know I don't." arguments you've read over. Now, think about how little they really mean when we compare them to actual real-world testing and use. The sentiment and denial that another "thing" is better applies to consumer products the same way it applies to providers in this context; so many people convince themselves that "their" carrier is best to make themselves believe they made a smart choice. It happens with product reviews all the time, ever heard of ownership loyalty?

I know there's a congressional bill which would require the FCC to mandate street-level, high resolution, high quality, standardized signal strength (that means real dbm values the carriers get when they site survey) maps, as well as an easy to understand explanation of the PRLs/roaming they're signing on for, for precisely this reason! Carrier maps are vague, exaggerated, and borderline false. Honestly, AT&T fanbois screaming in the face of cold hard facts in some illogical crusade to justify a potentially expensive mistake to themselves and the world is an even worse one.