dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Rick
Re: You know folks... What's so "unfair" about it? It's an apples-to-apples comparison of 3G coverage. It's a widely acknowledged fact that Verizon does have the better network; why wouldn't they point that out?
It's great that AT&T is addressing the issue, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist. If one company compares favorably in a given category, of course they're going to contrast and compare against the competition. |
|
|
|
| You obviously missed the sarcasm. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Rick and sarcasm against AT&T... say it isn't so.
Personally, I don't really mind VZW pointing out that AT&T's 3G footprint outside of many cities is less than impressive.
I do find that they're twisting the facts showing that people are 'out of touch' showing the image of Twitter not working where 3G does not exist is a bit much, and probably the only valid part of any complaint.
To me, it doesn't matter, as service in general works for me, and is relatively cheap.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to canesfan2001
Apparently so. Between fanboys and haters, you never know around here. |
|
| reply to dynodb
It's unfair because ever company is only to say that they're the best, not show it at the detriment of another poor little company |
|
 Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Firstly, I laugh at the idea of AT&T being referred to as "another poor little company". And secondly, if an advertisement uses truth, why can't it be valid? Do we rule out "taste test" commercials because it raises one company above another? How about "we deliver faster than the other guys"? Is all that "unfair"?
--
Hexadecimal humor really turns me 0FF. |
|
