 Phatty
join:2000-05-10
Valley Park, MO | Saw this last night.. Thought this ad was pretty entertaining when I stumbled on it last night. Also thought it was pretty sad to see the 3G maps compared...
That commercial really helps show that Apple & Verizon need to work something out for 2010. | |
|
 |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Re: Saw this last night.. said by Phatty:That commercial really helps show that Apple & Verizon need to work something out for 2010. What would they work out? From the looks of the maps Verizon has essentially everywhere that AT&T covers...already covered. Plus with different technology their phones are based on, I'm not sure if there is anything that they could work out anyways. | |
|
| |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Saw this last night.. said by cdru:Plus with different technology their phones are based on, I'm not sure if there is anything that they could work out anyways. Why is this comment so pervasive? Why wouldn't/couldn't Apple create an iPhone for CDMA? There's no reason they wouldn't already have one ready in the wings just in case. | |
|
| | |  MizzatWill post for thumbsPremium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Saw this last night.. said by morbo:said by cdru:Plus with different technology their phones are based on, I'm not sure if there is anything that they could work out anyways. Why is this comment so pervasive? Why wouldn't/couldn't Apple create an iPhone for CDMA? There's no reason they wouldn't already have one ready in the wings just in case. Sounds good, create an iphone for a technology even the company that runs it says its going to drop. That's ensuring the future success!
--
-M | |
|
| | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| said by morbo:Why is this comment so pervasive? Why wouldn't/couldn't Apple create an iPhone for CDMA? There's no reason they wouldn't already have one ready in the wings just in case. Oops. I read that as Verizon and AT&T working things out, like in sharing towers so that both had better 3G coverage.
I agree that from a technical standpoint, there wouldn't be anything stopping a CDMA version of the iPhone from being available if the exclusive agreement with AT&T were to lapse. | |
|
| | | thank god i have 3g coverage in North Dakota...cmon people this is a marketing gimmick. | |
|
| | What I don't get. Is why that Verizon and Sprint both have great 3G coverage but not AT&T. Does it have to do with CDMA? Or is AT&T just late to the game? | |
|
| | | Re: What I don't get. said by powerspec88:Is why that Verizon and Sprint both have great 3G coverage but not AT&T. Does it have to do with CDMA? Or is AT&T just late to the game? I have 3G pretty much everywhere south of chicago with AT&T.
Why do I feel like I am repeating myself?
Every carrier AND DEVICE will have different signal strength in different areas. Your friend could better reception than you in a mall, but look at what carrier and phone he has. Now, if he has has the same phone and same carrier and hes getting better signal than you - then there is something wrong with the phone and you need to take it back to the manufacturer or carrier (whoever will let you claim warranty on it). If they refuse to warranty the phone, then you know who you wont be staying with at the end of your contract...and if you do - its your own dumb fault.
But if he has same carrier but different phone, then its just the matter that you have different devices. | |
|
| | | | Re: What I don't get. Maps don't lie. AT&T has less coverage than Verizon. | |
|
| | | | | Re: What I don't get. said by fifty nine:Maps don't lie. AT&T has less coverage than Verizon. I have never compared the maps, since you seem to believe this would you mind posting the coverage maps so we can all compare?
Not call you a lier, but it would be nice to compare/contrast. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |  FlummoxedPremium
join:2002-01-24
Saint Peters, MO | Re: What I don't get. Based on this map data I shouldn't have had full 3g coverage on my drive from St. Louis MO to Tybee island GA back in August... But I did... the whole way... | |
|
| | | | | | | Great, can you also post the maps from other providers? | |
|
| | | | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| That's already very outdated.
Just on first glance I can see about a dozen cities that aren't on their map for "T-Mobile" but yet have 3g coverage.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: What I don't get. said by tiger72:That's already very outdated. Just on first glance I can see about a dozen cities that aren't on their map for "T-Mobile" but yet have 3g coverage. Looks close to accurate to me. Besides, I doubt T-mobile would have made any significant progress in 2 months. Same with AT&T. | |
|
| | | | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: What I don't get. said by ReVeLaTeD:said by tiger72:That's already very outdated. Just on first glance I can see about a dozen cities that aren't on their map for "T-Mobile" but yet have 3g coverage. Looks close to accurate to me. Besides, I doubt T-mobile would have made any significant progress in 2 months. Same with AT&T. Are you just choosing to be ignorant of the subject at hand?
check how many cities are rolling out by date.
»www.tmonews.com/tag/3g/
Or news posts here on DSL itself:
»T-Mobile Playing 3G Coverage Catch Up
They've been averaging a new 3g rollout city every 1.6 DAYS.
You're absolutely right that ATT hasn't made any significant progress in the past 2 months. Hell, not in the past year, imo.
But yeah, a new 3g rollout every 1.6 days and leapfrogging every other network to 21mbps hspa+ = "not significant progress". right.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What I don't get. said by tiger72:Are you just choosing to be ignorant of the subject at hand? check how many cities are rolling out by date. » www.tmonews.com/tag/3g/Or news posts here on DSL itself: » T-Mobile Playing 3G Coverage Catch UpThey've been averaging a new 3g rollout city every 1.6 DAYS. You're absolutely right that ATT hasn't made any significant progress in the past 2 months. Hell, not in the past year, imo. But yeah, a new 3g rollout every 1.6 days and leapfrogging every other network to 21mbps hspa+ = "not significant progress". right. If I'm in an area that never had 3G, I don't care whether it's 1, 2, or 21Mbps. I care whether there's data, period. In that aspect, it's Myth Busted.
»coverage.t-mobile.com/default.as···ype=Data
Maps predict and approximate our anticipated wireless coverage area outdoors, which varies from location to location. In other words, "We're showing you colors on the map, but guess what? That's what we HOPE will be our coverage, it isn't really, only kinda sorta. *grin* " | |
|
| | | | | | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: What I don't get.
Peoria, IL: ATT - 2g | 
Peoria, IL: TMO - 3g |
said by ReVeLaTeD:said by tiger72:Are you just choosing to be ignorant of the subject at hand? check how many cities are rolling out by date. » www.tmonews.com/tag/3g/Or news posts here on DSL itself: » T-Mobile Playing 3G Coverage Catch UpThey've been averaging a new 3g rollout city every 1.6 DAYS. You're absolutely right that ATT hasn't made any significant progress in the past 2 months. Hell, not in the past year, imo. But yeah, a new 3g rollout every 1.6 days and leapfrogging every other network to 21mbps hspa+ = "not significant progress". right. If I'm in an area that never had 3G, I don't care whether it's 1, 2, or 21Mbps. I care whether there's data, period. In that aspect, it's Myth Busted. » coverage.t-mobile.com/default.as···ype=DataMaps predict and approximate our anticipated wireless coverage area outdoors, which varies from location to location. In other words, "We're showing you colors on the map, but guess what? That's what we HOPE will be our coverage, it isn't really, only kinda sorta. *grin* " And that's precisely what every other carrier does. Or do you REALLY believe that ATT and VZW coverage are rounded blobs which somehow don't react to various forms of terrain?
As for coverage, they've got data coverage nationwide - it's just EDGE. As for 3g, as I stated above, they're rolling out data rapidly. So much so, that in some towns T-Mobile has 3g data where ATT still doesn't - even with a 3 YEAR head start.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | | | | | | said by ReVeLaTeD:said by tiger72:That's already very outdated. Just on first glance I can see about a dozen cities that aren't on their map for "T-Mobile" but yet have 3g coverage. Looks close to accurate to me. Besides, I doubt T-mobile would have made any significant progress in 2 months. Same with AT&T. And your proof being? What looks accurate to one person may be way off to another.
Ignorance truely is a bliss. | |
|
| | | | | | | Just checked out the map, please don't post an obvious bias map. You need to post a map from each carrier, otherwise you will have no argument as a map comparing carriers from a single carrier can be very bias. Facts need to come from independent sources, not all from the same source. Do you write a paper with a single source? | |
|
| | | MizzatWill post for thumbsPremium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| I'm not positive, but I though Verizon's EV-DO was more akin in speed to AT&T's EDGE. Who cares if its "3G" whats the speed comparison between these network types? If so I think AT&T's EDGE network is more widespread than Verizon's.
Anyone got the stats on all that?
--
-M | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by powerspec88:Is why that Verizon and Sprint both have great 3G coverage but not AT&T. Does it have to do with CDMA? Or is AT&T just late to the game? Sprint's 3G coverage isn't that much better than at&t which isn't saying much. When someone else can cover my area with 3G like Verizon does THEN they can talk about how much better they are. | |
|
| | | | Re: What I don't get. It all comes down to where you live... at my house, I get full bars of 3G with AT&T on my iPhone 3G, but my fiance who has Verizon with the enV phone has barely any signal here and drops calls constantly.
If you live in CT, you should switch to AT&T... far superior coverage here than Verizon. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: What I don't get. said by matrix3D:It all comes down to where you live... at my house, I get full bars of 3G with AT&T on my iPhone 3G, but my fiance who has Verizon with the enV phone has barely any signal here and drops calls constantly. If you live in CT, you should switch to AT&T... far superior coverage here than Verizon. Well I get ZERO bars of 3G with at&t becuse there's no 3G within 60 miles of me from them. Verizon 4 bars. WINNER? Verizon. ironcially 90% of my state is at&t POTS territory. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Charter
·Virgin Mobile Br..
·Millenicom
 ·HughesNet Satell..
 ·ooma
| Re: What I don't get. I think AT&T owns the state of TN! HAHA.. However, the 3G service here is terrible. But...there are THREE Verizon towers within 10 miles of each other. We'll never see any AT&T or Verizon DSL here though . . .
said by BF69:said by matrix3D:It all comes down to where you live... at my house, I get full bars of 3G with AT&T on my iPhone 3G, but my fiance who has Verizon with the enV phone has barely any signal here and drops calls constantly. If you live in CT, you should switch to AT&T... far superior coverage here than Verizon. Well I get ZERO bars of 3G with at&t becuse there's no 3G within 60 miles of me from them. Verizon 4 bars. WINNER? Verizon. ironcially 90% of my state is at&t POTS territory. | |
|
| | | | PaulTTU
join:2009-02-12
Cookeville, TN | said by BF69:Well I get ZERO bars of 3G with at&t becuse there's no 3G within 60 miles of me from them. Verizon 4 bars. WINNER? Verizon. ironcially 90% of my state is at&t POTS territory. Same here in Cookeville. Both Verizon and Sprint have excellent coverage, and AT&T has no 3G for 50 miles. I always get a good chuckle when I see someone with an iPhone because I remember hearing them gripe about it. I will say that Sprint's coverage map is a lot more honest compared to anything Verizon or AT&T shows. If you go to my city on their coverage maps, you see a giant blob of coverage for AT&T and Verizon, but Sprint shows signal levels that are fairly accurate and does it with unappealing light shades of green. | |
|
| | | pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| said by matrix3D:It all comes down to where you live... at my house, I get full bars of 3G with AT&T on my iPhone 3G, but my fiance who has Verizon with the enV phone has barely any signal here and drops calls constantly. If you live in CT, you should switch to AT&T... far superior coverage here than Verizon. I live in Connecticut, and switched from AT&T to Sprint. There have been no problems. AT&T connectivity was great, so is Sprint. I do notice that Sprint will roam on Verizon a bit now and then. Though as there is no cost, and it is optional (roaming can be turned off), it hasn't been an issue.
The biggest problem is roaming data hasn't been EVDO, slow data is just no fun.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
|
| | | | said by BF69:said by powerspec88:Is why that Verizon and Sprint both have great 3G coverage but not AT&T. Does it have to do with CDMA? Or is AT&T just late to the game? Sprint's 3G coverage isn't that much better than at&t which isn't saying much. When someone else can cover my area with 3G like Verizon does THEN they can talk about how much better they are. Regardless of what's going on in the bustling metropolis that is Camden, TN, Sprint does indeed have much more 3G coverage than AT&T. | |
|
| MRCUR
join:2007-03-09
Columbia, PA | I think it has to do with the ease of deploying EV-DO with CDMA. But Sprint and VZW also got a huge head start on 3G compared to AT&T.
Keep in mind: GSM 3G allows for voice & data to be transferred at the same time - EV-DO does not; it's data-only. | |
|
| | | | Yes and no. EV-DO is data only because the air interface and frequencies for CDMA2000 are backwards compatible with 2G CDMAOne (IS-95). Qualcomm invented EV-DV (Data & Voice), but no carrier was interested. EV-DO functions as 3G data channels that have the same channel sizes and can operate in the same frequencies as CDMAOne. (Most carriers add new channel frequencies to their existing voice networks, though.) Voice and data are be transferred at the same time; what happens is that in one signal some 1.25 Mhz channels are EV-DO data channels, and some 1.25 MHz channels are 2G CDMAOne voice channels. (Whether an individual handset listens on two channels simultaneously is another matter entirely.)
GSM 3G had to change to a CDMA multiplexing access scheme in order to get enough throughput to compete. However, this made it not backwards compatible with 2G GSM, hence it operates on entirely different frequencies and the spec must define new ways to carry voice. | |
|
|
approval from:
Cod 
djrobx
| It does have to do with CDMA.
Qualcomm's CDMA 3G (aka CDMA2000 in the 1xRTT (2.5G) and EV-DO (3G)) is forward and backwards compatible with CDMA 2G (aka CDMAOne or IS-95). This means that for Sprint and Verizon, they can give someone an upgraded phone and it will work with both new and old cell towers fine. They can also upgrade a cell tower to 3G and it will work with both new and old phones fine.
For GSM, while the slower 2.5G EDGE works as a data add-on to existing 2G service, and thus is backwards-compatible with old phones and towers and frequencies, the 3G GSM upgrade path (UMTS -> HSDPA -> HSPA+) works very differently from 2G GSM. Its air interface is based on CDMA (the multiplexing method, not the standard), instead of 2G GSM's TDMA. Because of this, it is not backwards compatible, and it runs on separate frequencies alongside 2G GSM. GSM networks have to upgrade their towers to broadcast both 2G GSM and 3G UMTS simultaneously in order to still support 2G phones. The upgrade is significantly more expensive because the old transmitter has to still be used for 2G. A 3G phone has to receive both 2G and 3G signals and be able to operate in either mode in order to work in legacy areas.
Early on in global deployment, this meant that GSM 3G phones either only worked in the very small area with 3G towers, or had very high battery consumption and short life due to requirements for dual mode. Those problems are mostly worked out, but it's no surprise that CDMA operators had a much easier time with their 3G upgrades. (As a pure air interface, 2G CDMA, which came out later, was more advanced. GSM has some more interesting things defined in the standard regarding SIM cards and the like.)
For 4G, everyone knew that OFDMA was even better and would be used as the air interface instead of CDMA. This wouldn't be backwards compatible with any existing system. That removed the easy upgrade justification for Verizon, Sprint, and others to stay with Qualcomm's standards. That's why Verizon signed on for LTE from the 3GPP standards body for GSM, and why Sprint is pushing for the also-OFDMA based Mobile WiMAX. | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| 1. Sprint's network is closer to T-Mobile's in size. This makes sense considering the frequency they use for GSM/CDMA.
2. Sprint can roam on Verizon anywhere, so it may seem like Sprint's network is significantly larger than it really is.
3. CDMA2000 itself is a 2g technology which was deployed over a decade ago. EVDO upgrades were a relatively simple addon to the existing network to update 2g data to 3g speeds.
4. GSM is a 2g technology, whose only data upgrade was EDGE, which is slower than EVDO. EDGE is just 2.5g.
5. For GSM networks to upgrade to 3g, they effectively had to create an entirely new, second network with a different technology. In other words, ATT and T-Mobile are both running 2 networks simultaneously (GSM+UMTS), while it's all one network for Sprint and Verizon. The additional costs of adding a second network made it so ATT and TMO couldn't expand coverage and compete, while Verizon is effectively upgrading and expanding the same network they've had for a decade.
This has led to the perception in the US that GSM coverage is inherently worse than CDMA coverage, when it really just has to do with very basic economics and corporate strategy.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by powerspec88:Is why that Verizon and Sprint both have great 3G coverage but not AT&T. Does it have to do with CDMA? Or is AT&T just late to the game? AT&T is being cheap with capital upgrades, 3G has same principle as Uverse, cheap, bare minimum, mediocre, and always screw 50 percentile (rural). AT&T Landline has 47 million homes passed ( »www.onetrak.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=2709 ), Uverse has 17 million homes ( »AT&T Slows U-Verse Build Out ), for a total Uverse penetration of 36%. FIOS is at 48% penetration currently ( »Verizon loosing FIOS customers ). Says something about AT&T vs Verizon corporate culture. | |
|
| |  NY TelPremium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3
·AT&T CallVantage
| Re: What I don't get. said by patcat88:said by powerspec88:Is why that Verizon and Sprint both have great 3G coverage but not AT&T. Does it have to do with CDMA? Or is AT&T just late to the game? AT&T is being cheap with capital upgrades, 3G has same principle as Uverse, cheap, bare minimum, mediocre, and always screw 50 percentile (rural). AT&T Landline has 47 million homes passed ( » www.onetrak.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=2709 ), Uverse has 17 million homes ( » AT&T Slows U-Verse Build Out ), for a total Uverse penetration of 36%. FIOS is at 48% penetration currently ( » Verizon loosing FIOS customers ). Says something about AT&T vs Verizon corporate culture. Yes it does....and AT&T's former CEO Mr. Whiteacre is now in charge of General Motors.  | |
|
| | Wait for it... Breaking: Verizon releases Android that doesn't include a web browser, email, GPS, or any bluetooth features. Verizon claims it's all for the "better experience" for the customer. Quoting CEO of Verizon, "People just want a phone to make and receive calls, they don't want all of these extra useless features. So, we decided to make the Android experience even better without including all the bloat that normally comes with the OS. I feel that our customers will really enjoy the "experience"."
I will bet that will happen, just watch. Popcorn anyone? | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | screenshot do we have a screenshot of the we have a map for that? that shows the verizon and att maps? | |
|
| |
| | neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA Reviews:
·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: screenshot SO looking at the map that AT&T slogan more bars in more place is just a scam? It seems like Verizon has more towers and T mobile the least next to Sprint. Then again if you never go out of a metropolitan area where coverage is pretty good then the point is moot. | |
|
| | |  NiarlanExcelsiorPremium
join:2002-11-09
Manville, NJ | Re: screenshot If you look at the places that AT&T say they cover 'more places'....they look pretty European to me...so, if you are in France...you're covered 
Nia | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | Re: screenshot If you read the fine print in the ATT TV ads, they always say that "the best coverage" is based on Global coverage. | |
|
| | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: screenshot said by fifty nine:If you read the fine print in the ATT TV ads, they always say that "the best coverage" is based on Global coverage. How does that work when Deutsche Telekom has its own mobile divisions in Europe that ATT roams on?
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| A sham and a waste of our resources... Verizon wasting ad dollars when it and and every other carrier should be spending it on QUICKLY rolling out 4G-LTE.
Our society (especially domestic) is retarded by companies that are the very control freaks we don't need. And worst of all, they control our communications, the very essence of society.
Playing these mudslinging ads only shows that its not friendly competition, its is marketing BS to get users to "churn".
Ironically, I am thinking of dumping Verizon for Tmobile/ATT/Sprint because of the features Verizon fails to offer.
The (Cell) Tower of Babel. Read it.
--
Splat | |
|
| | | Re: A sham and a waste of our resources... They most likely have a separate ad budget they need to burn through.
This means that they can spend a lot on advertising and network upgrades will be largely unaffected. | |
|
|  TimePremium
join:2003-07-05
·Cox HSI
| Verizon is going to have 30 LTE markets by 2010. I'd say that's faster than any other carrier. Sprint's WiMAX deployment isn't that impressive given the fact that they are just piggybacking on Clear.
--
"If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson | |
|
| | | | Re: A sham and a waste of our resources... said by Time:Verizon is going to have 30 LTE markets by 2010. I'd say that's faster than any other carrier. Sprint's WiMAX deployment isn't that impressive given the fact that they are just piggybacking on Clear. It's a lot more impressive than VZW's at the moment. Sprint/Clear plan to have 80 markets launched in 2010. VZW hopes to have 30 markets deployed by the end of 2010. I know which seems faster and more impressive to me...And what do you mean piggybacking on Clear? They own 51% of Clear. I'm not getting whatever point you were trying to make with that statement. | |
|
| | | | Sprint owns half of Clear just like Vodafone owns almost half of Verizon Wireless. And I don’t see how 30 markets is greater than 80. I’m not following you here! | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| said by cableties:Verizon wasting ad dollars when it and and every other carrier should be spending it on QUICKLY rolling out 4G-LTE. I seriously don't get why there's such a rush to deploy LTE. There's no voice component for it, so it's merely a data overlay network ATM. LTE Phones aren't projected to be available until the END of 2011... Both battery technology and total device size are currently issues. You think CDMA and WCDMA were tough on batteries - LTE is worse. That means the only people using the LTE network will be data cards. And knowing VZW, there WILL be caps.
Of course, VZW doesn't really have too many options. While ATT and TMO can upgrade to 21mbps and 42mbps hspa+, VZW is stuck at EVDO.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | Great commercial I thought it was awesome! It was straight to the point and backed up with facts. None of this largest, fastest, most awesomeness 10G network babble going on with this commercial.
--
SouthWest Louisiana PC Users Group »www.swlapcug.com | |
|
 bcroninPremium
join:2004-03-27
Hyde Park, NY | VZW is irrelevant All I can say is I won't consider going back to VZW unless/until they get the iPhone. Short of that this "there's a map for that" ad is simply irrelevant. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 FrinkProfessorPremium
join:2000-07-13
Scotch Plains, NJ | same boat? Is the smartphone selection swipe really necessary Karl? Does it really belong here? | |
|
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: same boat? said by Frink:Is the smartphone selection swipe really necessary Karl? Does it really belong here? I still dont see how Verizon smart phone selections are that much different than the other carriers. Unnecessary
Maps dont lie, Verizon does have more 3g in more places. | |
|
| | FrinkProfessorPremium
join:2000-07-13
Scotch Plains, NJ | Re: same boat? Agreed. | |
|
|  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
·VOIPo
| said by Frink:Is the smartphone selection swipe really necessary Karl? Does it really belong here? 3G coverage that Verizon has is great, but with a piss poor selections of smartphones then it is faily lackluster.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|
| | slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: same boat? said by ptrowski:said by Frink:Is the smartphone selection swipe really necessary Karl? Does it really belong here? 3G coverage that Verizon has is great, but with a piss poor selections of smartphones then it is faily lackluster. This is consistently regurgitated, but once again the carriers are pretty consistent in their offering of smart phones. | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: same boat? said by slckusr:said by ptrowski:said by Frink:Is the smartphone selection swipe really necessary Karl? Does it really belong here? 3G coverage that Verizon has is great, but with a piss poor selections of smartphones then it is faily lackluster. This is consistently regurgitated, but once again the carriers are pretty consistent in their offering of smart phones. Until this quarter, VZW was in the same boat that TMO was in last year. A couple of outdated smartphones. No Android. No iphone. Not even as large a selection as Sprint.
Now, they've just released the HTC TP2 and HTC Imagio. They're getting Android phones from Motorola and HTC.
They're definitely turning around, but to say that they had a good smartphone selection even a month ago compared to Sprint, ATT, and TMO, you had to be crazy.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
|
glinc
join:2009-04-07
New York, NY | Dude What happened to the can u hear me now dude??? if they included him following the other guy would be even more awesome! | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | iPhone reception improves I will just say this
I have had an iPhone since the 1st one came out and loved it. Absolutely still love it (got 3G now).
With that said, up until a few months ago, the reception was so poor that friends just didnt call me anymore. They either texted, emailed, or called my house line. I could barely get half my calls in several BIG cities as I moved around due to work. It was laughable.
I stuck through it though and am very impressed with the call reception now as it seems to have gotten much better. | |
|
NeosumPremium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA | It doesn't matter... I, for one, really don't care how big their "coverage" is. I'll never visit those areas. Get a phone that you're satisfied with, that can do what you needed it to do, and has service in YOUR areas and the areas you plan on being often.
Aside from that, it doesn't matter who's got the best coverage in Mississippi if you're from California. | |
|
| | Restrictions... There are lots of hurdles and restrictions to cell tower placement. Most are political and NIMBY. Maybe slap some solar panels on them?
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
|
rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
1 edit | MAPS I know one thing verizon maps show solid red in lower merion pa. They lie service suxs there. If they lie there who knows how many other places they are lieing about. | |
|
| | This ad is no lie for my area. This ad is backed up by solid proof. Just looking at the number of 3G towers and the coverage area compared to ATT there is absolutely no comparison. I live in Upstate New York, which is essentially the best place to be if you want to know what company actually invests in infrastructure. You combine the fact that the population is thinly spread out, you've got the Adirondack Park Agency trying to limit the number of towers, and the actual terrain and it becomes clear what company is serious about their coverage.
I work for ATT currently, but just got recruited by Verizon and am in the process of switching jobs. Sadly I just couldn't recommend ATT service in this area anymore. They took over the Unicel areas, and have absolutely ignored putting any amount of significant upgrades into place in this area. The whole ATT network a few weeks ago went down for a good two hours in Upstate New York. As with all these arguments it's all based on your location, but my experience seems to back up these new ads.
I also recently took a trip from Plattsburgh to Syracuse via route 11 and with no exaggeration I only counted three spots on my trip where Verizon dropped service and absolutely no spots with NO 3G coverage. ATT on the other hand had 3G service pretty much in the area surrounding Watertown and right in the heart of Syracuse other than that it was old EDGE coverage and I must have dropped service at least 10 times on the way (not counting the times that I was roaming off of Rogers Wireless). Albeit when I was in sight of an ATT 3G tower the 3G network was faster, but that's a moot point when you go 5 miles and it suddenly reverts to EDGE again. I literally had my laptop tethered to my Verizon phone the whole time watching youtube videos, I couldn't even dream of that with ATT. I have an old Blackberry Curve 8330 on Verizon and a Blackberry Bold on. Sad that an older phone can pretty much outperform a top of the line phone that's stuck on a really horrible network. I'm glad I'm switching from selling ATT to selling Verizon; it's truly hard trying to sell a product that you yourself really can't believe in. | |
|
| | VZW is irrelevent in my area... Until they learn how to treat their customers.
I purchased an iphone when the first release was out (it was actually for my girlfriend at the time) and I only live about 30-40 minutes north of boston and she got great service. Shortly after I had some issues with my VZW line (which was actually part of a corporate account with 200+ lines) and they basically did nothing to fix the issues I was having, which were likely a dying phone because it was less than a year old. She also had a problem with them which is why she ported her number over to AT&T. I decided after seeing how AT&T treated her as a customer (Curtosey/Professionalism/Intelligent staff) vs how VZW treated me (Like an inconvienience) I would vote with my dollar and moved over to AT&T and got myself an iphone. While admittedly I have had some of the 'service' related issues, none were for any length of time or persistent, and everytime I have called AT&T I have been treated with respect and as a valued customer. I now have the 3GS iphone and I don't care if VZW ever gets it, I will never do business with them again. Their only 'value' in my area is coverage, because everything else about them sucks. They act like they are the only game in town (and for some they are) and as a result they don't have to treat their customers well. Which is fine, it just means I won't ever be 'their' customer. | |
|
| | compared to the number two carrier at&t will not be number two for long.... esp if vzw keep shedding customers to the At&t and or the iPhone... its really bad | |
|
| | marketing cell phones are a commodity nowadays anyways. sally bought this phone so now i must have it. i still use my 8830 on vzw and love it. and as far as verizon waisting money on a commercial ? they had 80 billion in revenue with 35 billion in cash flow. i think big red has a few bucks to spare for a normal business practice. | |
|
| | My house/my town specifically. Inside my house, since i'm in the shadow caused by a tree filled hill, i get 0-5 bars, and my immediate area within 300 feet is in a "marginal" coverage area. Outside that is one step up on coverage, and farther away from the hill is the best coverage. In town i only get 5 bars everywhere i go, with fast edge & fast 3G data speeds. Verizon, sprint get marginal to moderate coverage everywhere i go, and my sister's boyfriend who has vzm doesn't get signal in my house at all. He gets 3-5 bars in town, and gets no coverage in his house a few miles away near the delaware river.
I recently got a new SIM card, and it seems as if the old one was worn out, because since i did the swap, the phone is aware of signal level more "real time" and data speeds have improved markedly. Also, att has added equipment on 2 cell towers, one in the middle of my town, and one about 3 miles away in the next town over. I am unaware of any additions vzm has made.
I will sing the praises of fios till the cows come home, but i would never in my life use vzm as my wireless carrier. Their coverage map is misleading, and does not have detailed signal quality topography as att's coverage map does.
If iPhone was with vzm, it would not have taken off like it has, because half the people in the area would have no to 3 bars coverage, making the 3G aspect all most useless, and draining the battery faster than needs be.
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
|
| | at&t not for nothing,just about all my friends had verizon,and when they came to my house they had nothing! i have had at&t for about 10 years or more,and i have never lost signal,no matter where i travel. thanks but i'll stick with at&t,i have rollover minutes,and good service | |
|
| | | Re: at&t For those of you arguing that AT&T does not have as broad a 3g service area as Verizon, you are correct. AT&T does not focus on BFE towns where spending hundreds of thousands of dollars updating cell sites on 14 people is deemed profitable. Can someone tell me how well Verizon's service works in the UK, Asia or any country other than the United States? Answer: it doesn't work. | |
|
| | | | Re: at&t Listen, what you need to understand is that Verizon is comparing apples to rocks (i know a slight variation from the original saying). They are comparing their 3G Mobile Broadband network map to AT&T's DATACONNECT map. BIG Difference. DataConnect is nothing more than AT&T's wireless data network. IT IS NOT THE 3G Network itself. So if you were to compare both maps, they would be virtually the same, with AT&T having slightly more coverage than Verizon. Good marketing GIMMICK by verizon...BAD way to lie to consumers.  | |
|
|
|
