Verizon To AT&T: The Truth Hurts

said by canesfan2001:

You obviously missed the sarcasm.

said by ropeguru:

How does AT&T have a valid point?? If Verizon has 26,000 square miles of 3G coverage and AT&T has 8,000 square miles of 3G coverage and is depicted as such on two different maps which clearly state "3G Coverage", how is AT&T's point valid??

Disclaimer: Numbers are fictitious and are used for illustration purposes only.

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

And this all goes back to the average person theory. The average person will look at the pictures and go "oh verizon must be better because they have more color" which is what AT&T is trying to subtlety argue.

Do you really think that the average person knows what 3G is? 2G/EDGE? 4G? They don't care, I'll bet a poll will show that all people know is that 4G must be better because its one G higher than 3G. They just care if it works, and the real truth is that different devices and providers will work better/worse in the same area.

said by BF69:

So the truth is "unfair" because the "average" person is too stupid to understand it?

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

Do you really think that the average person knows what 3G is?

said by fifty nine:

The average person? No. The average iPhone user? Yes, absolutely. And this ad was targeted at smartphone/iPhone users, not just people who do voice only.

said by Steve B:

What is unfair again? The fact that AT&T chose to ignore clear signs that its network needed upgrading in the past? The fact that AT&T users from all over are sreaming about how AT&T's network sucks? The fact that AT&T had all this time to fix the problem and are just now doing it?

Verizon has every right of way here and has extremely smart business sense in doing these ads. That is how business competition works. Don't cry because your idol company has been knocked down.

said by Rick:

lol...AT&T..my idol company?
I think you missed the intended humor in my post...hence the commercial i posted.

said by Rick:

AT&T has a VERY VALID point here and it is completely unfair after they're spending so much money on keeping up with upgrades that they now have to endure this kind of unfair, negative attack.

Verizon..you stop those ad's RIGHT NOW. Or AT&T will roll out THEIR reply. And God help you if they do.

said by chemaupr:

Is hard to invest more when you have to pony up so much money for to Apple in hardware and plan fees... Which is the reason VZ first declined the iPhone

said by skuv :

Apple wouldn't allow 3rd parties to sell the iPhone?

Best Buy and Wal-Mart sell iPhones, so I don't see how that could have been part of the reason Verizon didn't want the iPhone.

said by Matt:

They wouldn't at first. My local ILEC resells AT&T service and they weren't allowed to sell the iPhone for well over a year after the 3G release.

said by matrix3D:

I can only hope that this will cause AT&T to suddenly begin actually investing in their network after this case has been dismissed. Coverage here in CT is great, but based on anecdotal reports on this site and elsewhere, it sounds like anywhere that's metro has serious performance problems.

said by FastiBook:

And also, their 3G maxes out at less than half the max speed of att's 3G. 1.4 mbits vs 3 mbits and soon upgrades.

---

EVDO Rev. A maxes at 3.1 Mbps theoretically with real-life speeds in the >2.5 range being typical. HSPA 3.6 maxes out around 3.2 typically. So there is some difference at the high end.

But ATTM has a much smaller 3g footprint, and even within that footprint they have proportionally lot more problem areas with capacity and backhaul issues; so it's much more common to see ATTM subs who can't get close to top speed in typical usage. Not to mention the annoying connection drops, latency problems and random slowdowns experienced by a lot of ATTM users in a lot of places.

As always, YMMV when talking about networks, but there is not doubt that ATTM's network is a poor second- no, third, behind Sprint too- in overall quality nationwide.

quote:

---

Big red isn't planning speed upgrades, while 7plus mbit will be rolled out by end of 2010 on blue, then LTE after that.

---

According to what I've read, e.g., »www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/atan···t-plans/, it'll be more like the end of 2011 by the time ATTM finishes the 7.2 upgrade. By that time according to VZW's announced plans, they will be well into their LTE rollout.

quote:

---

Sounds like you're disappointed at being stuck in EDGE land, which by the way is all most as fast as EVDO's lower end.

---

Sounds like you are using a *very generous* definition for 'almost as fast.'

EVDO is usually above 500kbps. EDGE generally maxes out at around 200kbps and in many places is a good deal less. I see A LOT of EDGE where I live (even though the area is supposedly covered by UMTS according to ATTM's maps) and at least here, EDGE speeds in the 110-150kbps range are typical. My understanding from other ATTM subs is that this is typical elsewhere too, and consistent EDGE speeds approaching 200kbps are rare.

In any event, ATTM EDGE is nowhere near 'almost as fast as EVDO's lower end.' Not even on paper, much less in the real world.

Oh, and YOU neglect to mention that on EDGE, the UMTS simultaneous voice/data advantage goes out the window as well.

quote:

---

Data speeds below EVDO drop down to slower than dialup, whereas EDGE not only has better coverage, but you also can fall back onto GPRS.

---

1xRTT and GPRS are pretty similar, both generally slightly above dialup speed, say in the 60kbps range. But this isn't really much of a differentiator between the two carriers nationally, because both ATTM and VZW have similar, very high (>90%) geographical EVDO and EDGE and/or UMTS coverage.

quote:

---

ATT has the fastest netowork, even if they are somewhat behind in "3G" coverage due to an agonizingly complicated build-out process stemming from things earlier in the decade.

---

It is true that ATTM has had some technical and resource issues that VZW didn't have to deal with, but much of that was due to decisions that were entirely within ATTM's hands. But never mind all that, those decisions were made a handful of years ago, which is like an eon in technology time. They have had years now to fix their network and have skimped. Fact is, they made financially conservative decisions in building their slowly, building out just fast enough to make plausible marketing claims all along, and it shows. Even now, as far behind as they are in 3g deployment, even after the record years of growth in subs and revenue they've had since the iPhone launch, VZW STILL outspends them on network capex.

That tells you all you need to know right there.

I'm no VZW fan, I've never had them as my carrier, they are too expensive and up until recently their policies around handset selection and user control were completely intolerable in my opinion (part of the reason I started with Sprint and stuck with them is because they've always had a good network where I live, have always been relatively inexpensive, and have always released geek-friendly handsets).

But credit where credit is due, they have a much better data network than ATTM, it is no comparison. And seeing people like you making misleading and in some cases factually incorrect excuses for what is to my mind an inexcusable performance on ATTM's part is galling. If YOU are an ATTM sub, you should be more pi**ed than anyone; you shouldn't be making excuses for them.

ATTM has no one but themselves to blame for where they are. I carry an ATTM phone too, I speak from personal experience when I opine that their network does not perform as well as it should, and nowhere near as well as VZW's or even Sprint's overall nationally.

Their claim for years now of having 'America's fastest 3g network' is technically true, but the quality of service on and geographic reach of that network have made those claims so very misleading as an indicator of what sort of service a typical user might expect on ATTM. Far more misleading in fact than anything VZW has said in its recent ads, which are largely true. (Even ATTM has not disputed the truth of the '5x 3g network' claim at the heart of VZW's campaign.)

I am glad VZW is attacking ATTM. Its management hasn't listened to customers' complaints about their network for years now, maybe they will finally listen to a competitor and actually step up.

Maybe this will be the impetus to finally take some of the power away from the bean-counters and marketing types who have run that company for so long, and give it to the engineering people, who have been undervoiced.