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
D. Stussy
their 3G coverage, of course ignoring that the 2G coverage area is actually
comparable.
I liked that advertisement. Even if misleading (is it?), it was damn
funny.
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
Larry
@snarked.org:
> (is it?)
The 3G footprint of ATT across South Carolina is exactly what Verizon's map
says it is. Summerville, SC, a bedroom community of Charleston, is EDGE
only and slow as dirt.
http://www.wimaxatl.com/
Atlanta has WiMax.....10Mbps WiMax!
Cellular is in trouble and it knows it.....
UNLIMITED WiMax is $50/mo....TEN MEGABITS, NO THROTTLING, NO FUNNY
BUSINESS.
Watch the speed tests Clear is delivering. This is NOT Sprint Xohm....
....so don't tell us about Sprint going out of business.
WiMax is spreading nicely and fast as hell! I'll replace sellphone and
cable with WiMax as soon as its footprint reaches here....UNLIMITED $50/mo.
--
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.
Verizon Wireless to charge up to $350 early termination fees
>
> <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> >Looks as if Verizon is really raking AT&T over the coals with regard to
>
> It is NOT misleading. it's completely truthful.
>
> But, the truth apparently hurts, if you're ATT.
in your mislead dreams!
AT&T Sets the Record Straight on Verizon Ads
To Our Customers:
As the U.S. market leader in wireless data service, we typically
don’t respond to competitors’ advertising. However, some recent ads
from Verizon are so blatantly false and misleading, that we want to
set the record straight about AT&T’s wireless data coverage.
The key facts are:
AT&T’s wireless data coverage reaches 303 million people — or 97%
of the U.S. population, where they live and work. Our data coverage
consists of 3 different types of technology:
* 3G. 233 million people or 75% of the population are covered
by AT&T’s 3G network, the nation’s fastest.
* EDGE. 301 million people or more than 96% of the population
are covered by EDGE.
o With both 3G and EDGE coverage, customers can access
the Internet, send e-mail, surf the Web, stream music, download
videos, send photos, text, talk and more. The only difference – with
some data applications, 3G is faster than EDGE
* GPRS. Covers 303 million people, allowing you to talk, text,
e-mail and access basic websites optimized for wireless.
AT&T is the #1 network for smartphones, with twice the number of
smartphone customers than Verizon, our closest competitor. Some of the
reasons include:
Most popular smartphones. Unlike Verizon, AT&T offers the most
popular smartphones in the industry.
More wireless apps. Unlike Verizon, AT&T customers have access to
more than 100,000 applications, more than with any other wireless
company.
Talk and E-mail at the same time. Unlike Verizon, AT&T’s 3G
network lets wireless customers simultaneously talk and surf the web
or do e-mail.
Fastest 3G in the nation. Unlike Verizon, AT&T has the nation’s
fastest 3G network.
Thank you for allowing us to set the record straight. We
appreciate your business and will continue to work hard to deliver the
best wireless data experience in the industry.
Your AT&T Team
http://www.att.com/gen/landing-pages?pid=6080
--
Bottom Line
Verizon's profit is dying from churn where the cream of their
customers love the iPhone so much they are willing to switch to AT&T
to get it.
Verizon is using the time honored device of FUD to combat the churn
with their misleading ads. FUD means to create Fear Uncertainty and
Doubt in you competitors market. Some Verizon customers will hold of
switching for fear and uncertainty that they are going to have no high
speed coverage in their local area.
Verizon is offering a Motorola device they are promoting as the best
thing since sliced bread as the best new cell phone in the world to
create uncertainty in those about to switch, again to fight churn.
Real users and web reviews are being revised by disappointed users
after they have had the Droid for a week. The consensus, the iPhone is
a much better deal for normal people.
Last in a stroke of Genius, Verizon doubles the ETF for this type of
powerful phones to LOCK in customers who if they have a family plan
with two phones will be hit with a $700 termination fee to get out of
their contract for just one phone. Yes Verizon doesn't tell you they
changed you contract to include both phones and a higher ETF even if
only one is a smartphone when you buy a DROID.
People are already screaming about this on the Consumerist.com web
site. If you have a kid in college the ETF could approach $1050 or
more. Now families who lose a job and think they can cut back on their
Verizon bill have a strong incentive to cut cable tV or the Internet
before they try to drop their Verizon family plan. Verzion has learned
from the recession and has put in place an ultra high ETF to protect
their business and stop the churn.
All of this is just business as usual for Verizon. Check out
Consumerist.com for more on the subject. Learn what other companies in
the USA are doing to their customers before they do it to you.
Larry
f5cfcd...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> Bottom Line
>
Bottom line is the 3G coverage is EXACTLY what shows as the Blue Zone on
the Verizon ATT map.....or ATT would have already had them up on charges
by now, which isn't being done because it's the TRUTH.
Verizon isn't near as stupid as you want them to be. Their attorney
staff of hundreds fanned out across a vast expanse of really smart
investigating engineers to come up with a map they could count on to be
impeccably perfect FOR THE UPCOMING COURT CASE....or it would cost
Verizon millions to billions to settle with ATT for a lie. ATT's
attorney staff has, by now, inspected every pixel of that map looking
for some kind of untrue hole to rake ol Verizon over the judges'
charcoal burners to line their pockets as heros of ATT, saving the
company from a big lie.
Now, as the little game ATT played with the judges was unsuccessful, we,
here on the outside watching the spectacle of the two huge elephants
tusking each other, can only assume that blue splotched map is the most
accurate representation to date of ATT's real 3G coverage....verified by
all the moneyed law firms ATT can muster, it seems.
That tiny splotch at Charleston, SC, that doesn't include Summerville,
SC and the surrounding bedroom communities, or any coverage up I-26
towards Columbia is DEAD ON ACCURATE, around here.
Isn't it time ATTWS quit screwing around with lawyers and put the
engineers to work BUILDING OUT THE SYSTEM THEY BOUGHT FROM
CINGULAR....so many years ago, now. They've had the time....but have
been sitting on their corporate ass milking the customers on 3G's tit.
Won't matter soon. Atlanta's Clearwire WiMAX delivers 10Mbps to a
laptop aircard! I don't see how the USB2 port can keep from
exploding!...pieces of laptop spraying over the unsuspecting WiMax
customers gasping and writhing in blissful orgasm....
Verizon's shitty EVDO is the LEAST of ATTWS' little problem, now. LTE
sucks compared to UNLIMITED WIMAX FOR $30 AT THESE SPEEDS!
http://www.wimaxatl.com/
Will Wimax VoIP replace sellphone's shitty companies and their scams?
Let's all hope so!
Wimax'd Skype on iPhone....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk-XbqQfrno&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvERFNNrd4o&feature=related
Laptop in the park in Atlanta....geez.
--
Larry
Richard B. Gilbert
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:57:53 -0800 (PST), "Verizon Wireless to charge
> up to $350 early termination fees" <vic.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 13, 5:07 pm, The Other Guy <knewskg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>>>> Looks as if Verizon is really raking AT&T over the coals with regard to
>>> It is NOT misleading. it's completely truthful.
>>>
>>> But, the truth apparently hurts, if you're ATT.
>> in your mislead dreams!
>>
>>
>> AT&T Sets the Record Straight on Verizon Ads
>>
>> To Our Customers:
>
> It ONLY stands for '3rd generation technology'.
>
> The fact that AT&Ts 2nd generation technology is ALMOST as fast
> as Verizon 3G AND has far more coverage than implied in the Verizon
> ads, does NOT mean anything in light of the ads, which ARE true, AND
> accurate for their claims.
>
> That people WON'T be aware of the similarities between AT&T 2G and
> Verizon 3G is THEIR fault, because they didn't check the facts.
>
> Or did you NOT see the early Apple ads that implied MS couldn't do
> colors, and all the OTHER garbage Apple implied in THEIR ads??
>
>
Okay. But does anybody care?
News
Surely, no fanboi cares.
Larry
news:hrnuf55cv8c9kts4d...@4ax.com:
> The fact that AT&Ts 2nd generation technology is ALMOST as fast
> as Verizon 3G AND has far more coverage than implied in the Verizon
> ads, does NOT mean anything in light of the ads, which ARE true, AND
> accurate for their claims.
>
>
I can't wait to see both these sellphone companies faced with the 10Mbps
for $30 of Clearwire's WiMax Unlimited sucking the life out of both of
them.
http://www.wimaxatl.com/
http://www.clearwire.com/
--
Larry
Steve Sobol
says...
> I can't wait to see both these sellphone companies faced with the 10Mbps
> for $30 of Clearwire's WiMax Unlimited sucking the life out of both of
> them.
>
> http://www.wimaxatl.com/
> http://www.clearwire.com/
When WiMax comes to the Victor Valley, I'll get excited.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjs...@JustThe.net
George
Just the opposite. If you are a fanboi you don't have a normal life so
your entire existence depends on your belief system.
George
> In article <Xns9CC430F4C3...@74.209.131.13>, no...@home.com
> says...
>
>> I can't wait to see both these sellphone companies faced with the 10Mbps
>> for $30 of Clearwire's WiMax Unlimited sucking the life out of both of
>> them.
>>
>> http://www.wimaxatl.com/
>> http://www.clearwire.com/
>
> When WiMax comes to the Victor Valley, I'll get excited.
>
Don't hold your breath. They haven't made any money yet and they are
seriously underfunded.
News
The true fanboi's belief system is incontrovertible, totally self-secured..
SMS
> That people WON'T be aware of the similarities between AT&T 2G and
> Verizon 3G is THEIR fault, because they didn't check the facts.
What AT&T couldn't say in their response is that the data rates on their
2G EDGE network are often close to the data rates on their congested 3G
network so for Verizon to compare Verizon's 3G network to AT&T's 3G
network was unfair.
If you look at real-world comparisons of 3G speeds on the various
networks, i.e. "http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=167391&page=1&zoomIdx=1"
that shows you the bigger picture. In fact Verizon could have done maps
that showed download speeds of >800 Kb/s versu download speeds of <= 800
Kb/s and had an even more hard hitting ad, but it would complicate the
message, and AT&T would claim that the PC World measurements were either
inaccurate or out of date.
In another year or so, the Verizon ad will likely not be true anymore as
AT&T expands 3G deployment and catches up to Verizon, but by then
Verizon will have deployed 4G and can come up with something else.
AT&T was foolish to respond to a competitor's ad with such a weak
response. AT&T is already having the last laugh with the huge success of
the iPhone that Verizon turned down.
Pegleg
> What AT&T couldn't say in their response is that the data rates on their
> 2G EDGE network are often close to the data rates on their congested 3G
> network so for Verizon to compare Verizon's 3G network to AT&T's 3G
> network was unfair.
Nothing is "unfair" in the world of advertising!
Untrue maybe but mot unfair!
Brian
DevilsPGD
<knews...@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>The TRUTH is that 3G is NOT a standard, and it's NOT a speed.
>It ONLY stands for '3rd generation technology'.
True.
>The fact that AT&Ts 2nd generation technology is ALMOST as fast
>as Verizon 3G AND has far more coverage than implied in the Verizon
>ads, does NOT mean anything in light of the ads, which ARE true, AND
>accurate for their claims.
You have an odd definition of "ALMOST"
EDGE has a maximum theoretical speed of 384Kb, with real world speeds
being in the 150-175Kb range.
EVDO having a maximum theoretical speed of 2.4Mb-3.1Mb (depending on
whether it's Rev A), and typical real world speeds in the 300Kb-700Kb
range (yes, that's real world speeds that are almost as fast as double
EDGE's theoretical speed)
I don't normally call "double" "almost", although you're certainly
welcome to do so if you desire.
From where I'm sitting, AT&T would do better focusing on it's strengths,
the fact that you miss calls while using data on EVDO is a big deal to
me, although AT&T would need to be careful about presenting this one
since it's true on EDGE too.
>Or did you NOT see the early Apple ads that implied MS couldn't do
>colors, and all the OTHER garbage Apple implied in THEIR ads??
That's advertising -- Cover the other guy in shit, then try to confuse
the consumer into thinking that you don't smell as bad just long enough
to make the sale.
Larry
september.org:
> Don't hold your breath. They haven't made any money yet and they are
> seriously underfunded.
>
>
Who's "they"? Which company?
--
Larry
Richard B. Gilbert
> 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."
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
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> What AT&T couldn't say in their response is that the data rates on their
> 2G EDGE network are often close to the data rates on their congested 3G
> network so for Verizon to compare Verizon's 3G network to AT&T's 3G
> network was unfair.
>
ATT's 3G goes faster than 3G is capable of to iPhone customers. I got
amazing responses to a request for speedtests on iPhones.
--
Larry
DevilsPGD
This was when you confused what the iPhone can do on wifi with what the
iPhone does on 3G, right?
Todd Allcock
It'll be a long time before any WiMax footprint threatens cellular data.
When that day finally comes, the cellcos will drop their prices to compete,
just like many landline carriers eventually added unlimited LD plans to
compete with cellcos.
The cellular companies are simply enjoying their current rate structure
while they can.
Personally, WiMax holds no interest for me until they build it into
smartphones (and they eventually will, I'm sure.) I use a smartphone so
I don't have to lug a laptop or netbook around.
Larry
news:Xu5Mm.36732$%j4.1...@newsfe18.iad:
Er, ah, like HTC's new one?
http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=14588
http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/06/palm-to-serve-up-ultra-thin-wimax-
smartphone-this-year/
or Palms?
Or Samsung's?
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/10/15/kt.to.bring.wibro.compatib
le.samsung.handset/
This one interests me. CDMA on PagePlus for phone/text....plus WiMax
for unlimited data without the sellphone funny business!
http://www.wimaxian.com/2009/09/18/samsung-android-based-cdmawimax-
smartphone-may-arrive-in-2010-for-sprint/
Screw Sprint....buy it separate and put it on Pageplus for pennies.
Of course, Samsung has my favorite NC10 netbook all ready with WiMAX
built right into it!
http://astore.amazon.com/wimaxian-20/detail/B00284CBBC
Maybe I should move to Atlanta....Naw, no ocean. I'll wait....(c;]
--
Larry
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!!!
digi
with EVDO. Real world EDGE speeds are more along the lines of
Verizon's 1X network, which both would be considered 2G technology.
As far as ATT's 3G network being the fastest, please oh please show me
where. I do beleive they are reffering to some markets being 7.2 mbps
HSPA, and the rest of their 3G being 3.6 mbps, however I have never
seen an ATT speedtest score higher than around 3.1 mbps. Not to
mention, such results are not common with ATT, as even the fanbois
will tell you how overly saturated the network is. Verizon's Rev. A
however, gives me a solid 3 mbps down, and 500 kbps up, literally
ANYWHERE I go, ANYTIME of the day. This even includes the dirt roads
in the backwoods of South Carolina. Honestly, I would not feel good
about supporting my cellular providers excuse of not offering 3G in
certain areas, simply because of population density, its not like they
are gonna save me any money because of it.
The only comeback that ATT offers which actually carries any weight,
is the lack of simultaneous voice and data on Verizon, but even then,
who cares. When you think about the small number of practical
situations where you would need such a feature, plus the big
performance headache of trying to actually perform such an action on
most devices, makes me realize that it is really not a big deal. The
only rare instance this has ever caused myself any problems, is when I
am tethering on my laptop, but I simply just pause my net activity
until I get off the phone, problem solved. If I did this alot, I
would rather have a dedicated air card or MiFi anyways.
Todd Allcock
"digi" <jha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fee381f6-6a60-47ec...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>I cannot believe that some of you are saying that EDGE is comparable
> with EVDO. Real world EDGE speeds are more along the lines of
> Verizon's 1X network, which both would be considered 2G technology.
Agreed. That part of the AT&T "defense" is silly...
The only place your argument falls down is:
> Honestly, I would not feel good
> about supporting my cellular providers excuse of not offering 3G in
> certain areas, simply because of population density, its not like they
> are gonna save me any money because of it...
Perhaps they could, at least in the admittedly slim circumstance you
yourself brought up:
> The only comeback that ATT offers which actually carries any weight,
> is the lack of simultaneous voice and data on Verizon...
>...If I did this alot, I
> would rather have a dedicated air card or MiFi anyways.
And that's how AT&T can save customers money: simultaneous voice/data can,
in most instances, avoid the need for a second aircard/MiFi account, since
the one device/account can provide both services. Adding an aircard/MiFi
would bump your monthly spending at least $30 (a $60/month charge for the
second account, minus a $30 savings on the first which would no longer
require a "tethering" add-on.)
Adding 3G to AT&T's entire network would be cost prohibitive for the
relatively few additional users that would use it outside urban and suburban
areas, so it just isn't going to happen anytime soon, but in their 3G areas
a second device or account to surf the web on your laptop or netbook is not
really neccessary as it might be with Verizon.
Spectrum
miles to get 3G. My Edge connection here is about 45 kb/s. If I can't
find Wifi, it's pretty useless to me. According to Verizon's ATT map,
that's just about accurate.
digi
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/11/13/editorial-hey-atandt-drop-lawsuits-not-calls/
SMS
> I cannot believe that some of you are saying that EDGE is comparable
> with EVDO. Real world EDGE speeds are more along the lines of
> Verizon's 1X network, which both would be considered 2G technology.
>
> As far as ATT's 3G network being the fastest, please oh please show me
> where. I do beleive they are reffering to some markets being 7.2 mbps
> HSPA, and the rest of their 3G being 3.6 mbps, however I have never
> seen an ATT speedtest score higher than around 3.1 mbps.
It's marketing-speak. Sprint can claim to be the "most powerful"
network, and AT&T can claim to have the fastest 3G network.
It's like measuring output power of amplifiers. Remember IPP
(instantaneous peak power) that some low-end manufacturers would quote
in their ads.
AT&T'3G network does have the highest peak speed under ideal
circumstances. The average speed of their data network is of course much
lower, closer to Verizon's 2G data rates in some areas, because of
congestion caused by the popularity of the iPhone. All of this will
change eventually. AT&T is building out its 3G network to solve the
problems that are causing the slow speeds, while Verizon is far ahead of
AT&T in 4G.
I'm in Florida now and three of my nephews are here and they all have
iPhones. One lives in Atlanta where service is fine. One lives in NYC
where he cannot use his iPhone in his apartment near Union Square due to
lack of coverage, though it works most other places in NYC at 2G like
speeds (it's a 3G iPhone). He uses Skype at home since he has no
landline and no AT&T coverage. One lives in San Diego where he has no
complaints about the speed, but coverage is spotty. The PC World speed
tests earlier this year did not include Atlanta, but they did include
NYC and San Diego, and my nephews' experiences are close to what PC
World's tests showed. NYC showed the average AT&T 3G download speed at
477 kbps with 65% reliability of coverage. San Diego showed 768 kbps
download speed with 65% reliability of coverage.
Richard B. Gilbert
Always remember that advertising is created to SELL THE PRODUCT. Its
connection to reality may rather tenuous. And that's putting it politely!
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> Looks as if Verizon is really raking AT&T over the coals with regard to
> comparable.
>
> I liked that advertisement. Even if misleading (is it?), it was damn
> funny.
>
>
It's all pretty much the same where I am, but I noticed a drop in
voice quality in my change and I don't know if it was the AT&T to VZW
change or the iPhone to the Droid. One than I can say for certain is
that Moto kicks Apple and everyones ass when it comes to the internal
speaker.
--
.
Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam
zd...@invalid.org
> D. Stussy wrote:
>> Looks as if Verizon is really raking AT&T over the coals with regard to
>> their 3G coverage, of course ignoring that the 2G coverage area is actually
>> comparable.
>> I liked that advertisement. Even if misleading (is it?), it was damn
>> funny.
>>
>
>
> It's all pretty much the same where I am, but I noticed a drop in
> voice quality in my change and I don't know if it was the AT&T to VZW
> change or the iPhone to the Droid.
In Chicagoland, I recently changed from AT&T (for 10 years various
phones Nokia, Krzr, Blackberry Bold, some newere Sony phone ) to
Verizon (Droid) and am thrilled to omit "could you repeat that?" from
my normal phone discourse.
For me, voice quality has improved dramatically with Verizon, and
coverage penetration into buildings seems improved as well. Places I
couldn't make a call with AT&T or if I could make it the data rate was
so poor I couldn't understand or be understood in that call all seem
to be fine with Verizon/Droid.
> One than I can say for certain is that Moto kicks Apple and
> everyones ass when it comes to the internal speaker.
Actually the speaker on the speakerphone on the Blackberry Bold (At&T)
is better than the Droid (the Droid's speaker can be pushed into some
buzzsaw distortion without yet being as loud as the BOld). overall,
though, intelligibility is vastly superior on Verizon with the Droid
to any phone I had on AT&T.
SMS
> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> writes:
>> D. Stussy wrote:
>>> Looks as if Verizon is really raking AT&T over the coals with regard to
>>> their 3G coverage, of course ignoring that the 2G coverage area is actually
>>> comparable.
>>> I liked that advertisement. Even if misleading (is it?), it was damn
>>> funny.
>>>
>>
>> It's all pretty much the same where I am, but I noticed a drop in
>> voice quality in my change and I don't know if it was the AT&T to VZW
>> change or the iPhone to the Droid.
>
> In Chicagoland, I recently changed from AT&T (for 10 years various
> phones Nokia, Krzr, Blackberry Bold, some newere Sony phone ) to
> Verizon (Droid) and am thrilled to omit "could you repeat that?" from
> my normal phone discourse.
>
> For me, voice quality has improved dramatically with Verizon, and
> coverage penetration into buildings seems improved as well.
All surveys and evaluations for years have shown that voice quality on
Verizon is superior to voice quality on AT&T. It's simply because CDMA
has better voice quality than GSM.
zd...@invalid.org
I'm not sure what explains windsorfox's apparent opposite experience
(lousy VZW coverage where he is? defective phone?), but my own
experience does concur with those surveys that suggest CDMA beats the
snot out of GSM in voice quality.
SMS
> I'm not sure what explains windsorfox's apparent opposite experience
> (lousy VZW coverage where he is? defective phone?),
LOL. don't you know what explains it? He made the whole thing up!
WindsorFox<[SS]>
I've never used a BB, but the Droid's speaker is MUCH better than
the Apple. I've found comparatively with what I've used Moto has some of
the better or best speakers.
--
.
"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy
WindsorFox<[SS]>
To be certain about sound quality I suppose I should go back and
directly compare the two. I'll try to do that next time I'm with someone
who has an iPhone. As for coverage quality it's all location.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
I made up that the coverage quality of ATT in South Louisiana is
better than VZW? No, that is not the case, it is a fact. In the woods
of East Feliciana Parish VZW has no service coverage, Nextel and ATT do.
As for the sound quality between the Droid and the iPhone that is
opinion, one that I will compare directly when I have a chance. I
suggest you save your petty bullshit for those more worth of it.
Todd Allcock
> All surveys and evaluations for years have shown that voice quality on
> Verizon is superior to voice quality on AT&T. It's simply because CDMA
> has better voice quality than GSM.
I'm not sure you can equate "GSM voice quality" with AT&T- I find my T-
Mobile GSM service has much better audio quality than my AT&T GSM service
did, and at least as good, if not better, than Verizon's.
I'd humbly suggest that system capacty and the carrier's choice of codec
(data rate) are far more important than the underlying technology used.
SMSbuster
> zd...@invalid.org wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Steven M. Scharf"
"Steven M Scharf (who now posts as SMS) describes himself as one of
the world's leading authorities on bicycle lighting, and bicycle
helmets, and various other things. Fortunately the world carries on
in
blissful ignorance of this fact, since it has been established that
his "expertise" is based on religious conviction rather than
evidence... How to deal with Scharf: Check all dogmatic assertions
made by him, probe for the evidential basis, cite conflicting
evidence
and challenge him to cite the evidence in support for his position.
Do
this enough and he will killfile you."
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Steven_M._Scharf
"The story of SMS, Steven M Scharf"
"A few notes for search engines and anyone tempted to take SMS
seriously or visit his websites.. A quick look around shows the
following facts - if you can be bothered reading it, make your own
judgment about this person, his real experience, and his morals... "
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.photo.digital/2008-11...
"The U.S.A.'s Leading Independent Authority on FM Digital Radio
Technology, News, and Products"
http://sites.google.com/site/digitalradiofacts/
This guy is a fucking fruitcake. He's now a leading expert on Digital
Radio. He spams message boards, creating new websites, and link-farms
to them for income. Now, a show of hands for those that fell fell
for this fruitcake? He probably posted as HD Radio Fartz, HD Radio
Far,
etc, too... Buddy, you really need some serious mental health...
He needs to be reported to Google.
SMSbuster
"Steven M. Scharf"
AT&T lowers iPhone rates for unlimited talk and data
> All surveys and evaluations for years have shown that voice quality on
> Verizon is superior to voice quality on AT&T. It's simply because CDMA
> has better voice quality than GSM.
Do you give away samples of that drug you are on?
Larry
6cdf71...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> SMSbuster
Wow, Steve! Congratulations! Looks like someone at corporate is doing
some research!
SMS
No, just someone from another newsgroup upset that I made them look
foolish for their antics there.
Larry
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
Aha...That's pretty easy to do on Usenet....(c;]
John Navas
wrote in <4b51c16e$0$1603$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
Only in your dreams.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?