Study: iPhone Users Actually Secretly Love AT&T > I like them...

I like them...

The iPhone is a remarkable device no two ways about but so is the EVO and I can place calls and access the network on the EVO without the issues that ATT/iphone solution offers so my perception is that the iphone/ATT solution sucks hind tit in the Bay area and NYC. When ATT fixes their lack of resources in these two major locales then "maybe" my perception would be more positive.
The iPhone may be the next best thing to SEX DRUGS and rock and roll but if oyu can't place a call , maintain a connection or access the services you are so dearly paying for then the phone is nothing but a pretty paper weight that lights up and is a damned expensive iPOD

reply to theoph
I was surprised to find out that some people experience good service with AT&T, until someone who knows very well that AT&T is really crappy actually told us what was going on: he took a trip to someplace other than his usual work and living places, other than one of the many places I've lived, and he reported that *everywhere* he went except for where he usually does business and lives (the same as one of the main areas I have lived most my life), AT&T service was actually *acceptable*. I.e., for whatever reason, AT&T has designed its quality of network to closely match some sort of area types that tend to circulate in their own circles pretty closely, but not cross over to the other circles. Notice that AT&T is bad in NYC and Greater San Francisco Bay Area, but it is good in the sticks and in Southern California now (it used to be bad in socal too according to some posts here, so perhaps that was a third intermediate circle). Well, believe it or not, those are three different circles of people, and most of us wouldn't be caught dead treading in the others' circles of area.

So it suddenly makes sense why a large group of people take it as matter-of-fact that AT&T is the devil and hell incarnate, and other large groups of people take it as matter-of-fact that AT&T has reasonable coverage. Neither group is wrong *within their own circle*, but leave their circle, and they couldn't be more wrong. Their circles closely tie to both social and geographical circles, so suddenly this all makes much more sense.

So, reality is not being distorted at the web. The discussions are, apparently, accurately reflecting the reality. It really makes a lot of sense when you look at the above data that this is the outcome. Certain groups claim "yeah it's great/OK", certain other groups claim "it's worse than absolutely horrible", and none of the groups can reconcile with the others' because very few people get the chance to cross-over into the other areas where things are just different -- social circles, geographical circles, etc. -- they seem to match up when it comes to AT&T's quality of implementation.

Well said! I live in Central TX, about halfway btwn Dallas & Austin. In Dallas, Austin, Where I live AT&T is pretty good. My only complaint about my area.. is MMS messages take FOREVER to send. Internet works well, but MMS takes minutes to send a simple picture.

Last weekend, I went down near the Mexico border with my brother, who has Verizon. For about 1 of the 5 hour drive, I didn't have service, at all, yet my brother did. He was on the phone, and I couldn't even text.

Yet, when we got to our destination, he had nonexistant service (except in the local city, where of course, he had 5 bars)....

No network is perfect, although someday that *MAY* change..doubtful, but you never know. I think consumers should purchase the services that work best for them.