| One dimensional thinking Need not apply. Coverage is good if you are out in the boonies a lot, traveling between cities, state to state, etc., but RF engineering isn't one-dimensional.
Verizon is marketing on the ignorance of the common cellular user. Verizon, like AT&T and every other cellular carrier, knows that RF engineering is multidimensional.
Now, if you are someone that drives on the road for a living between cities, across states, etc., then coverage is a nice thing to have.
But, if you are more common to being in a city than not something other than Verizon's coverage advertising will not be the primary factor, but rather call capacity.
But none of this matters for 99.999% of cellular users. They bought on want and marketing, not common sense and research. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by GhostDoggy: They bought on want and marketing, not common sense and research. The facts show that Verizon has better 3g coverage than AT&T. Marketing this difference by Verizon is a huge advantage, and users that want the most for their money will go with a provider that offers more for the same price. Consumers know value. |
|
| You are suggesting that consumers are conscious of a difference in coverage needed, but I'm suggesting consumers are ignorant to the multidimensional aspects of RF engineering, that Verizon knows of this consumer ignorance, and marketed accordingly.
Ignorance is bliss, as Verizon would suggest. And hey, I am not even using AT&T Wireless. Just that I know a little something about cellular RF engineering and can observe the common consumer. |
|
| reply to GhostDoggy
What century are you living in?
These are mobile phones. People are mobile. People visit Grandma and Grandpa that live in a different state. People go to theme parks and National Parks for vacation. Where's the nearest gas station? Where's a restaurant or laundrymat or drug store in the area?
Big Red is marketting that their 3g network coverage is larger. It is a tangible benefit for those who are mobile.
(BTW, I am an happy iphone user who fully understands ATT's network coverage issues.) |
|
 RRedlineRated RPremium
join:2002-05-15
Williamsport, PA | reply to GhostDoggy
said by GhostDoggy:Ignorance is bliss, as Verizon would suggest. And hey, I am not even using AT&T Wireless. Just that I know a little something about cellular RF engineering and can observe the common consumer. Verizon has better 3G coverage than AT&T does. I'm not sure what ignorance has to do with a fact such as that.
It sounds like you work for AT&T.
--
One nation, under Zod! |
|
|
|
1 edit | reply to morbo
Most for your money?? I think it will be sprint there 3g coverage is not as bad as att or t-mobile and cost way less than verizon. take a look at the map that is from verizon »vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotco···ison.pdf |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | thanks for that link. very useful. |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | reply to GhostDoggy
I used to agree with you but having moved around to a few cities recently, I tend to be a little more open to the argument about wanting flexibility with my service even if I don't ever use it.
Whether it is vacation spots, friends in other locations, etc....moreso than ever, extending the service is probably becoming MORE important |
|
1 edit | reply to GhostDoggy
Re: One dimensional thinking The map says "5x more 3G coverage" on it.
Not 5x more 3G capacity, or 5x more coverage. Specifically referring to 3G coverage. And they do.
Hey, I love my iPhone, and I couldn't function without it anymore at this point. But AT&T's network sucks.
--
OASAASLLS |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to bostonkarl1
Its a vast generalization.
AT&T will only shoot themselves in the foot by bringing more attention to VZW that their network isn't all that.
They have +80 million subscribers... but this will tarnish their image possibly more than customers complaining over the iPhone.
said by bostonkarl1 :
People visit Grandma and Grandpa that live in a different state
Yeah, and these devices will still work.
VZW poured a little salt in AT&T's wound... AT&T should focus on fixing their issues, rather than making them more well known by making this public.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to GhostDoggy
So you're saying that capacity is as important as/ore important than coverage? Well, Verizon beats AT&T there too. |
|
 dmeyer
join:2002-08-14
Austin, TX | In certain geographic areas that is true. However, the opposite is very much true in certain areas as well. That is the fact. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Welcome to the world of YMMV. However Verizon talked about 3G coverage in their ads, so they're fine. |
|
| reply to RRedline
I travel for work, and use a smart phone. For most people, the smart phone collects email automatically, and we just read it when we get a chance.
For this purpose, the difference between 2G and 3G connections is meaningless. I was camping for three days two weeks ago, in the boonies. I had one (2G) bar on my phone, but was able to receive and send email with no problem. Speed is just not an issue.
On the rare occasions that I use the web browser - maybe to check the weather radar, or check in for my flight - I hope for 3G, so I don't grow old waiting. But, that's rare.
At home I have a need for speed, but for smart phone email, I don't. |
|
RRedlineRated RPremium
join:2002-05-15
Williamsport, PA | said by jimness000:For this purpose, the difference between 2G and 3G connections is meaningless. I was camping for three days two weeks ago, in the boonies. I had one (2G) bar on my phone, but was able to receive and send email with no problem. Speed is just not an issue. And what about people in areas where they barely have ANY data speeds at all? Between my hometown and the town I work in, I am very lucky just to be able to send/receive email. I get anywhere from 0 to 100 kbps (and it's not at all uncommon to be at 0).
--
One nation, under Zod! |
|
 statecopPremium
join:2002-09-16
Heflin, AL | reply to GhostDoggy
said by GhostDoggy:Need not apply. Coverage is good if you are out in the boonies a lot, traveling between cities, state to state, etc., but RF engineering isn't one-dimensional. Verizon is marketing on the ignorance of the common cellular user. Verizon, like AT&T and every other cellular carrier, knows that RF engineering is multidimensional. I am not sure what world you are living in but I have had Verizon prior to moving to AT&T. I went to AT&T just to get the iphone and while I enjoy my iphone it is quickly becoming now worth the BAD coverage, numerous dropped calls, and lack of 3G coverage. I am very tech savvy and have used both. I travel all over my state and can tell you it isnt even close the network coverage ATT has against what verizon offers. The day the iphone can be put on verizon will sound the death rattle of AT&T in the cell market.
While I do not want to give up my iphone I am considering it due to the bad service from AT&T. |
|
| reply to RRedline
The red on the map, is it purely EVDO (3G) or 1xRTT? How much is 3G and how much is 1xrtt. As far as i know since i used it every in DC, when you fall to 1Xrtt, it doesnt fall back to 3G. Now you might not be experiencing that in voice but in data, we do all the time.... |
|
| reply to RRedline
AT&T coverage is just as good as Verizon in the city where I live. I don't care how many more places Verizon has 3G coverage if I spend 99% of my time in the same place that has AT&T coverage.
It may be great that Verizon has coverage in Backwoods Alabama, and AT&T doesn't, but that will never make one iota of difference to many, many people.
The point that Ghostdoggy is trying to make is that for many, many customers the extra coverage doesn't mean squat. In that respect, "better" coverage is immaterial. I'll take an iPhone over any crippled Verizon phone ANY day. |
|
