said by itguy05:They are all based off of CDMA which has a whole different network tuning, cell spacing and placement, and other requirements than GSM.
Verizon has the advantage in that they have already built and tuned their system for a CDMA based technology. They have lots of experience with it.
I'd love to see how you think AT&T can "barely afford to upgrade their network". If you look at the stats, AT&T spends just as much as Verizon in network upgrades per year. They do have the disadvantage in that they have to support GSM, UMTS, and LTE but if they are smart, they will do what they did to the TDMA/Analog customers a few years ago.
I think you really need to stop thinking that VZW is the best and that everyone else will stand still. I'd love a pair of those red V tinted glasses.
Also, if you think LTE will be smooth and everywhere on VZW, I've got a bridge to sell you. I saw their rollout of 1X and it was slow, probably as slow as AT&T's 3G rollout.
I use them both and find Verizon's call quality to be subpar and their performance to be as good as AT&T. Not better, not worse but nowhere near the "God Carrier" that people think.
Wideband CDMA does not have nearly the same coverage area as CDMA2000/EVDO, period. I know it's not GSM, but it suffers from the same issue of increased need for infrastructure. That costs AT&T more. Dollar for dollar comparison of investment between Verizon and AT&T is worthless. I'm sure it'll take years for Verizon to get LTE smoothly rolled out and I'm sure there will be growing pains. What I'm not sure of is where you got the idea I think it's like flipping a switch. I do know that getting a head start on building the network will help, since AT&T has stated they'll be starting a year later. With respect to network quality, your opinion and my opinion matter only to our personal experiences. The statistics speak for themselves nationwide. There will always be places where AT&T is better, but on average, Verizon seems to have the edge.
