Has Verizon Hoodwinked America?
Verizon Wireless to charge up to $350 early termination fees
AT LAST!
The Truth About AT&T vs. Verizon
Posted: 10 Nov 2009 06:39 AM PST
AppleInsider has published an excellent article that compares AT&T’s
network to Verizon’s network. The article gives information about the
difference between the two companies and their coverage. Definitely an
article you will want to check out. You can view the full article
HERE.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/10/att_defends_its_data_network_from_verizon_ad_attacks.html
This historical setting allows Verizon to compare its entire data
network against just the faster portion of AT&T’s 3G mobile data
network while ignoring AT&T’s existing 2.5G network that approaches
Verizon’s EVDO in speed. By only comparing the newest segment of
AT&T’s network, Verizon can advertise “3G maps” that are technically
accurate, but grossly misleading to users who want to obtain data
service to download email and access the web.
It also appears that Verizon is counting its service areas
providing less than Rev A service as part of its 3G coverage, when in
fact these deliver about the same performance as AT&T’s EDGE service.
Verizon would not lie to customers to gain market share?
Would they lie to you?
Ralph Mashuda
"Verizon Wireless to charge up to $350 early termination fees"
<vic.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7795b68b-e28d-44ff...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.appleiphoneschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/attvsverizoncoverage2.png
> AT LAST!
> The Truth About AT&T vs. Verizon
>
> Posted: 10 Nov 2009 06:39 AM PST
> AppleInsider has published an excellent article that compares AT&T�s
> network to Verizon�s network. The article gives information about the
> difference between the two companies and their coverage. Definitely an
> article you will want to check out. You can view the full article
> HERE.
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/10/att_defends_its_data_network_from_verizon_ad_attacks.html
>
> This historical setting allows Verizon to compare its entire data
> network against just the faster portion of AT&T�s 3G mobile data
> network while ignoring AT&T�s existing 2.5G network that approaches
> Verizon�s EVDO in speed. By only comparing the newest segment of
> AT&T�s network, Verizon can advertise �3G maps� that are technically
> accurate, but grossly misleading to users who want to obtain data
> service to download email and access the web.
>
> It also appears that Verizon is counting its service areas
> providing less than Rev A service as part of its 3G coverage, when in
> fact these deliver about the same performance as AT&T�s EDGE service.
SMS
> Are you employed by AT&T?
Actually Verizon is being rather kind in their advertisements since they
are showing AT&T's 3G coverage based on the AT&T maps, not based on
whether or not the actual speed is what 3G is expected to be.
They could have done a more hard hitting advertisement if they had gone
out and measured actual data throughput at peak times of day and then
not compared just 3G coverage, but coverage where the download speed is
greater than 800 kb/s according to independent studies, i.e.
"http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=167391&page=1&zoomIdx=1".
The ad then could have dropped Baltimore, New York City, Orlando,
Denver, New Orleans, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, San Jose, and Seattle
from the AT&T map, while dropping only Phoenix and San Diego from the
Verizon map. Or they could have based the ad on reliability ratings of
85% or greater.
OTOH, the AT&T speeds, while not what users would expect for 3G service,
are still fast enough for most users that aren't doing anything real time.
In any case, the Verizon ad misses the point. AT&T is doing so well in
selling 3G data services not because of the network, but because of the
huge appeal of the iPhone. At least Apple understands that "it's the
content." This is true for the iPod and it's true for the iPhone. The
Droid may have several features that the iPhone doesn't have, but it
doesn't have the content. Apple understands that this is a consumer
electronics device where content makes the difference.
do...@09.usenet.us.com
> Actually Verizon is being rather kind in their advertisements since they
> are showing AT&T's 3G coverage based on the AT&T maps, not based on
> whether or not the actual speed is what 3G is expected to be.
And their ridiculous 100% digital overage maps aren't stretching the truth
more than a little?
North Dakota is nearly completely covered in red...
That suggests to me that there are more cellular antennas than people in
North Dakota.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
SMS
> And their ridiculous 100% digital overage maps aren't stretching the truth
> more than a little?
With CDMA, a single tower can cover a very large distance. It's why so
many rural carriers opted to move to CDMA rather than move to GSM which
has much more limited range. There is a way to extend GSM coverage but
it has not been deployed in the U.S. as of yet*.
But perhaps it is stretching the truth, since those maps are likely
created based on best case scenarios with the best handset (with an
external antenna). Some handsets will get no signal at all in the same
place that other handsets have sufficient signal to make or receive a
call. The maps do show gaps in coverage in North Dakota, as they do all
over the country. Just less gaps than other carriers.
Verizon and T-Mobile appear to do the least hoodwinking of any carrier.
Look at AT&T's unsupported claim of "fewest dropped calls" and their
misleading ad claim of "more bars in more places" (where relatively poor
U.S. coverage is glossed over because there is more coverage in the rest
of the GSM world). Sprint is more vague, with "most powerful network."
Remember that every single independent study has backed up Verizon's
network claims. Not just Consumer Reports, but Yankee Group, J.D. Power,
and Consumer Checkbook (for the regions it covers).
Verizon's 3G ad was not misleading at all. They never sought to compare
2G coverage. It's not unreasonable for purchasers of 3G devices, that
are paying for 3G service, to be interested in the comparative breadth
of 3G coverage among the carriers. Verizon could have picked equally
well on Sprint or T-Mobile with the same 3G comparison, but of course
the two real competitors are Verizon and AT&T.
I'd love to see the AT&T lawsuit over the Verizon 3G ad actually go to
trial and have AT&T up there complaining that Verizon did not include 2G
coverage in the maps comparing 3G coverage.
* One person in the U.S. thinks it has been deployed, but he is incorrect.
Todd Allcock
> In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Actually Verizon is being rather kind in their advertisements since
they
> > are showing AT&T's 3G coverage based on the AT&T maps, not based on
> > whether or not the actual speed is what 3G is expected to be.
>
> And their ridiculous 100% digital overage maps aren't stretching the
truth
> more than a little?
>
> North Dakota is nearly completely covered in red...
> That suggests to me that there are more cellular antennas than people in
> North Dakota.
Perhaps Verizon knows no one would ever challenge that claim because
they'd actually have to actually go to North Dakota to do it! ;)
Larry
> http://www.appleiphoneschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/attvsverizo
> ncoverage2.png
Would everyone who is getting 3.2 megabits per second continuous download
rate from ATT 3G anywhere in America please run this non-flash speed test
on your iPhone, snap a picture of the screen and post it.....
...or just post what the REAL numbers the traceroute.org speed test shows
on your iPhone.
What 3G speeds is ATT and iPhone really delivering....??
http://www.tracert.org/bandwidth_meter/
no flash is necessary, so it should run on iphone or the other smartphones
all hobbled up.
--
Larry
SMS
> Would everyone who is getting 3.2 megabits per second continuous download
> rate from ATT 3G anywhere in America please run this non-flash speed test
> on your iPhone, snap a picture of the screen and post it.....
I don't think anyone expects 3.2 Mb/s, but a minimum of 800 Kb/s, even
at peak times of day, might be nice.
Larry
news:Xns9CBFECBE9E8...@74.209.131.13:
> "Verizon Wireless to charge up to $350 early termination fees"
> <vic.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:7795b68b-e28d-44ff...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> http://www.appleiphoneschool.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/11/attvsveriz
>> o ncoverage2.png
>
> Would everyone who is getting 3.2 megabits per second continuous
> download rate from ATT 3G anywhere in America please run this
> non-flash speed test on your iPhone, snap a picture of the screen and
> post it.....
>
> ...or just post what the REAL numbers the traceroute.org speed test
> shows on your iPhone.
>
> What 3G speeds is ATT and iPhone really delivering....??
>
> http://www.tracert.org/bandwidth_meter/
>
> no flash is necessary, so it should run on iphone or the other
> smartphones all hobbled up.
>
>
Try this one, too! It works very well!
http://www.ispgeeks.com/wild/modules.php?name=Bandwidth_Meter_DSL
TEST IS ACCURATE FOR ANY USA LOCATION
Your current bandwidth reading is:
6.14 Mbps
Which means you can download at 785.68 KB/sec. from our servers
--
Larry
Larry
news:4afa3c2c$0$1674$742e...@news.sonic.net:
We might be able to get 800Kbps if we were the only ones on the air....(c;]
--
Larry
Fan of Dragons
In article <Xns9CBFECBE9E8...@74.209.131.13>, Larry
Fan of Dragons
in tests just run 11/11/2009 @ 10:36 AM est I got:
ispgeek site Tracert site
iphone av 2.61Mbps 2.47Mbps
desktop av 7.89Mbps 3.44Mbps
desktopis MacPro on comcast.net
the ispgeek site runs test without flash or java
tracert test doesn't say
Al
In article <4afa3c2c$0$1674$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
Don R.
entire time. I kept seeing people using Verizon phones with no problem.
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:3mmKm.14360$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
Larry
4ednVPbUPU6lWbX...@earthlink.com:
> I kept seeing people using Verizon phones with no problem.
>
You could get a Page Plus prepaid cellular, which operates on Verizon's
system, as backup for when ATT is dead and only pay $2.50/month (one $10
card ever 4 months will keep it alive forever, which is 83 minutes of
airtime.) Any CDMA multiband phone will work on Pageplus...no SIM to buy,
no crazy charges for taxes that don't exist. Online activation is $10,
which includes 100 free minutes to get you started. PagePlus works
nationwide on Verizon/Alltel and its partners and has great coverage.
No sense being in the ATT vacuum and helpless....
--
Larry
do...@09.usenet.us.com
> I was just in the Dakota's. My AT&T iPhone had zero coverage almost the
> entire time. I kept seeing people using Verizon phones with no problem.
Which corresponds to the very truthful AT&T coverage maps of the Dakotas.
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer
Most of the coverage, such as it is, is noted as "Partner", not AT&T.
There are some pockets of AT&T, but quite small.
There's also the question of overall truthfulness, since Verizon doesn't
really offer 3G at all, just something they consider to be an equivalent.
AT&T coverage could be judged on EDGE, which is faster than quite a bit of
the red mapped "digital" coverage in the Verizon maps.
They carefully describe their version of 3G as "3G speeds", and define that
as a speed that is just out of the reach of AT&T EDGE, sometimes described
as 2.5G. If EDGE were included in the "there's a map for that", Verizon
wouldn't bother showing the maps.
http://www.appleiphoneschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/attvsverizoncoverage2.png
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=data
It could very well be that Verizon is bigger better faster than AT&T
overall, but the Verizon coverage map is worthless in my area.
do...@09.usenet.us.com
> entire time. I kept seeing people using Verizon phones with no problem.
Which corresponds to the very truthful AT&T coverage maps of the Dakotas.
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer
Most of the coverage, such as it is, is noted as "Partner", not AT&T.
There are some pockets of AT&T, but quite small.
There's also the question of overall truthfulness, since Verizon doesn't
really offer 3G at all, just something they consider to be an equivalent.
AT&T coverage could be judged on EDGE, which is faster than quite a bit of
the red mapped "digital" coverage in the Verizon maps.
They carefully describe their version of 3G as "3G speeds", and define that
as a speed that is just out of the reach of AT&T EDGE, sometimes described
as 2.5G. If EDGE were included in the "there's a map for that", Verizon
wouldn't bother showing the maps.
< http://www.appleiphoneschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/attvsverizoncoverage2.png >
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=data
It could very well be that Verizon is bigger better faster than AT&T
overall, but the Verizon coverage map is worthless in my area.
--
Dennis Ferguson
> There's also the question of overall truthfulness, since Verizon doesn't
> really offer 3G at all, just something they consider to be an equivalent.
Bogus! AT&T runs (theoretical) 3.6 Mbps HSDPA, Verizon runs 3.2 Mbps EVDO
Rev A or 2.4 Mbps EVDO Rev 0 (I wasn't aware of the latter; maybe it's
from Alltel?). The test results posted in this thread, here
http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=167391&page=1&zoomIdx=1
mostly find Verizon real life speeds to match or exceed that of AT&T
(they shouldn't, but AT&T seems to have some problems). In theory
these sound pretty close, and measurements seem to confirm that.
> AT&T coverage could be judged on EDGE, which is faster than quite a bit of
> the red mapped "digital" coverage in the Verizon maps.
Bogus! I believe the EDGE service AT&T runs generally has a
theoretical maximum of 462 kbps (note the huge difference between
that and the numbers above), but as a practical matter it was only
a couple of years ago that AT&T was forced by the iPhone to deploy
enough backhaul to get real-life speeds at or above 200 kbps in the
cities. See, e.g.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=321459
Rural EDGE is likely to still be closer to the 50-100 kbps their
entire network used to be.
Now as far as I can tell, Verizon's ad map only includes EVDO.
You can check too; go here
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST>
and select "Broadband & V Cast". If the ad map looks like the blue
and yellow parts (but not green) then it is EVDO.
Now Verizon admits that real life EVDO Rev 0 speeds might, in their
very worst case, be as low as 400 kbps. Note the test results above
for AT&T in New York and Denver: AT&T's real life 3G worst cases
aren't too much better.
Even on its very best day, however, AT&T EDGE will never exceed,
or even reach, the 400 kbps EVDO Rev 0 worst case, so that
if the red part of that map is all EVDO there is no where on that
map where EDGE's very best case could be better than EVDO's very
worst case. What this ignores, however, is that EDGE's worst case
is very much slower than 400 kbps, in fact not much faster than
dialup, and that the rural areas where you might find Verizon's
worst-case EVDO are the very same areas where AT&T's worst case
EDGE would be all there is (the whole network was worst-case EDGE
two years ago). The whole argument that EDGE is equivalent to EVDO
depends on EDGE running at its very theoretical maximum everywhere
on AT&T's map, while EVDO Rev 0 is running at its real-life worst
case of <20% of the theoretical maximum over significant potions of
Verizon's map. That's a fantasy that could only be concocted by
those grasping at straws.
> They carefully describe their version of 3G as "3G speeds", and define that
> as a speed that is just out of the reach of AT&T EDGE, sometimes described
> as 2.5G. If EDGE were included in the "there's a map for that", Verizon
> wouldn't bother showing the maps.
400 kbps real-life throughput is out of reach of AT&T's entire
EDGE deployment, and is way, way out of reach of what actually
exists in most of AT&T's EDGE coverage map. These are in no
way comparable.
> http://www.appleiphoneschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/attvsverizoncoverage2.png
You trust that when they couldn't even be bothered to google
up the correct bandwidth numbers for the 3G services? AT&T's
is 3.6 Mbps, Verizon's is 3.2 or 2.4 Mbps. And they don't
even bother to mention AT&T EDGE's theoretical limit of 462 kbps.
In real life all those services, including EDGE, run significantly
slower than those limits. The story only works if you don't look
at comparable numbers.
The sad part of this is that the 3G technology AT&T has deployed
really is better than EVDO. Not only does it do simultaneous
voice and data, but its real life achieveable speeds tend to be
closer to the theoretical and it has a lot of room for future
upgrade while EVDO is dead-end. Here's what I get from the 3.6
Mbps down/384 kbps up service (the network is faster than that,
but my plan is a $15/month 1400 minute+data special so I'm limited
to 3.6 down and no HSUPA) on Hong Kong's worst carrier with my
similarly crappy phone tethered to my laptop:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/608966108.png
Whatever AT&T deploys, however, never seems to work like it
is supposed to.
Dennis Ferguson
do...@09.usenet.us.com
> Rural EDGE is likely to still be closer to the 50-100 kbps their
> entire network used to be.
My rural EDGE is around 70Kbits/sec. No Verizon here, even though it is
quite red on their map.
> Now as far as I can tell, Verizon's ad map only includes EVDO.
My objection to the red map that is referenced in the ad is the absolute
perfection of it, ignorant of terrain, and real life observation.
> Now Verizon admits that real life EVDO Rev 0 speeds might, in their
Do they admit that there is no signal at all in substantial portions of the
map that show coverage?
Dennis Ferguson
>> Rural EDGE is likely to still be closer to the 50-100 kbps their
>> entire network used to be.
>
> My rural EDGE is around 70Kbits/sec. No Verizon here, even though it is
> quite red on their map.
There is that. Are you in a roaming area, or where they claim native
coverage?
In roaming areas Verizon often seems to have no idea what is covered,
and mostly just prints a license map.
In native areas, however, I agree that Verizon maps give no hint
as to where their coverage holes are unless they're really big.
Nor does Sprint's map, nor do AT&T's and T-Mobile's 3G maps
for that matter. Only the GSM maps are any good in the details.
I've always wondered why that is.
>> Now as far as I can tell, Verizon's ad map only includes EVDO.
>
> My objection to the red map that is referenced in the ad is the absolute
> perfection of it, ignorant of terrain, and real life observation.
>
>> Now Verizon admits that real life EVDO Rev 0 speeds might, in their
>
> Do they admit that there is no signal at all in substantial portions of the
> map that show coverage?
It is well known that if you take a two color map and shrink the
number of pixels used to represent it, it will begin to look more
and more like the color that covers most of the area and less and
less like the color that covers the least. The broadband map on
Verizon's web page looks to me like it has a lot more white spaces
than the (smaller) ad map, but I really can't find anywhere on the
ad map which looks like a lie (as opposed to the white just getting
too small to see).
I'll agree with you about that, though, with the reservation that
I don't know how much "substantial" is. I just don't believe the
line of argument which says EDGE and EVDO Rev 0 are anything like
the same thing, should you happen to be fortunate enough to live
where both are available.
Dennis Ferguson
Dennis Ferguson
> On 2009-11-12, do...@09.usenet.us.com <do...@09.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.cingular Dennis Ferguson <dcfer...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Rural EDGE is likely to still be closer to the 50-100 kbps their
>>> entire network used to be.
>>
>> My rural EDGE is around 70Kbits/sec. No Verizon here, even though it is
>> quite red on their map.
>
> There is that. Are you in a roaming area, or where they claim native
> coverage?
>
> In roaming areas Verizon often seems to have no idea what is covered,
> and mostly just prints a license map.
Well, I sort of answered my own question. Your longitude and
latitude put you (+/- 6 miles, you should include another decimal
place) in the vicinity of big kiss-of-death green areas on Verizon's
Broadband map. Apparently they are counting on some other carrier
to provide roaming coverage there, and are just printing out the
license map. Verizon colors these areas undistinguished red on
their Voice map, however.
The map in the ad apparently excludes all the green areas on
their broadband map, so I'm certain they didn't mean to color
your house red. The scale is just a little coarse to see that.
Dennis Ferguson
Chez
Bloomington, IL, and in a few years to eastern KY. I am not buying
something because somebody else has (fast) coverage. For cell phone
calls speed does not seem important - I can only talk so fast. Web
browsing is as it may be and we do not text.
Larry
> There's also the question of overall truthfulness, since Verizon
> doesn't really offer 3G at all, just something they consider to be an
> equivalent. AT&T coverage could be judged on EDGE, which is faster
> than quite a bit of the red mapped "digital" coverage in the Verizon
> maps.
>
Verizon's EVDO Rev A system in Charleston, SC, consistently delivers 1.0-
1.2Mbps every time I test it using the non-partial Flash-based speed tester
from my ISP:
http://speedtest.knology.net/
which is in no way connected with Verizon and not cached.
It's faster than my Cricket, which weighs in around 800Kbps, but has a 5GB
limit on Verizon that Cricket doesn't impose on its unlimited service.
I've been on Cricket's 1.9Ghz EVDO Rev A using an A600 modem for about 6
months and, in a Cricket service area which keeps getting larger here,
service is wonderful for $40/mo. Noone has sent me any nastygrams for my
15-30GB/month usage, yet....(c;]
I suspect Verizon's speed is probably fairly consistent across its
footprint. NOONE on an iPhone here is getting the 2.5Mbps several reported
from speedtest websites this past week. NOONE.
http://www.ispgeeks.com/wild/modules/Bandwidth_Meter_DSL/initialmeter.php
--
Larry
Larry
news:slrnhfn9a3.4...@akit-ferguson.com:
> You trust that when they couldn't even be bothered to google
> up the correct bandwidth numbers for the 3G services? AT&T's
> is 3.6 Mbps, Verizon's is 3.2 or 2.4 Mbps. And they don't
> even bother to mention AT&T EDGE's theoretical limit of 462 kbps.
> In real life all those services, including EDGE, run significantly
> slower than those limits. The story only works if you don't look
> at comparable numbers.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9NIW7iOBW8&annotation_id=annotation_154196
&feature=iv
America and its corporations really suck, you know it?....
The video will make you sick....don't watch it.....
How do they keep the netbooks from EXPLODING?!
Here we all sit bitching and arguing about whos internet dick is longer.
The Japanese watching must be laughing their heads off.....
Damned American corporate assholes...all of them....
--
Larry
Dennis Ferguson
Here's what I get from the Internet service that came with the
apartment I stay in:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/608958924.png
What I haven't figured out yet is whether the state of this in the
US is more due to the protection of the margins of American
corporations or to American geography, particularly because the
provision of fixed line service (unlike mobile) doesn't seem to be
particularly profitable. In Asia they don't seem to mind (or have
no choice about) living in cities with 50,000 or more people per
square mile, which are really efficient to wire. Americans generally
prefer a lot more space, which drives the cost of wiring anything
way up.
Personally I'd trade some Internet bandwidth for a little more living
space.
Dennis Ferguson
Larry
> What I haven't figured out yet is whether the state of this in the
> US is more due to the protection of the margins of American
> corporations or to American geography, particularly because the
> provision of fixed line service (unlike mobile) doesn't seem to be
> particularly profitable. In Asia they don't seem to mind (or have
> no choice about) living in cities with 50,000 or more people per
> square mile, which are really efficient to wire. Americans generally
> prefer a lot more space, which drives the cost of wiring anything
> way up.
>
Most amazing. Don't come here. We have lots more space but you'd be bored
to tears, especially on a sellphone 3G circuit...(c;]
Seeing these speeds is a good reality check for Americans noting it. The
systems COULD provide this kind of connectivity....if only the corporate
bean counters would open the gates....
--
Larry
do...@09.usenet.us.com
> > There is that. Are you in a roaming area, or where they claim native
> > coverage?
Quite Native.
> > In roaming areas Verizon often seems to have no idea what is covered,
> > and mostly just prints a license map.
I'll accept that they have no idea what is covered in my area.
> Well, I sort of answered my own question. Your longitude and
> latitude put you (+/- 6 miles, you should include another decimal
> place) in the vicinity of big kiss-of-death green areas on Verizon's
> Broadband map. Apparently they are counting on some other carrier
> to provide roaming coverage there, and are just printing out the
> license map. Verizon colors these areas undistinguished red on
> their Voice map, however.
I provide a rounded GPS coordinate for general reference by others.
Fairly granular, but in the right community. I don't see a place for
lat/long entry on the Verizon page. There is one on the AT&T page.
I am not in the light green "Extended Enhanced Services" area.
I am in the dark green "Enhanced Services" area.
Each of the optional buttons on that page show the highest level of service
all over this area. The gaps that I can find are in areas with no paved
roads.
> The map in the ad apparently excludes all the green areas on
> their broadband map, so I'm certain they didn't mean to color
> your house red. The scale is just a little coarse to see that.
It doesn't matter how far you zoom in on the interactive page of that same
map, it's all solid red near any of the paved roads in my area.
Richard B. Gilbert
> In message news:-4ednVPbUPU6lWbX...@earthlink.com, "Don R."
>
>> I was just in the Dakota's. My AT&T iPhone had zero coverage almost the
>> entire time. I kept seeing people using Verizon phones with no problem.
>
If that's the worst error you ever see, count yourself lucky!
I once heard a grown man say "Her and Bruce went to the movies." A
mandatory eight years of primary and at least two of secondary education
failed to eradicate this error! He was speaking the language he had
learned at his mother's knee. There is little or no hope of changing
something like that!
Larry
news:Xns9CC4C07CD5...@69.16.185.252:
> In message news:-4ednVPbUPU6lWbX...@earthlink.com, "Don R."
> <drennardw...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> I was just in the Dakota's. My AT&T iPhone had zero coverage almost the
>> entire time. I kept seeing people using Verizon phones with no problem.
>
> There is no apostrophe in "Dakotas."
>
Not always true, Pa! There's Dodge Dakota.....
"Our Dodge Dakota's engine blew up!"
Notice the proper apostrophe.
He might have been the the Dakota's cab with zero coverage, in the Dakotas
and a lot of other places, too, about 3 miles off most interstates in the
country....
....but that's another story.....
--
Larry
Larry
news:CsWdnXjjUIRLOZ3W...@giganews.com:
Be sitting down. Engrish signage in Japan is simply hilarious!
They even have a Happy Drugs chain of stores! Go Japan!
--
Larry
George Kerby
On 11/16/09 12:04 AM, in article Xns9CC5AFE38E...@74.209.131.13,
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote:
Roll up your jeans boys, ol' (notice the apostrophe?) Lar is spouting the
bullshit again.
Quick, someone find the Kaopectate!!!