AT&T iPhone at the "Island of Misfit Toys" - was Re: Has Verizon Hoodwinked America?

SMS wrote:

> 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

In message <> The Other Guy
<> 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 ****, then try to confuse
the consumer into thinking that you don't smell as bad just long enough
to make the sale.

George <> wrote in news:hdoq7v$i8c$-
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

SMS <> wrote in news:4afff6bc$0$1950
$:

> 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

In message <Xns9CC4CC5A87A5noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
<> was claimed to have wrote:

>SMS <> wrote in news:4afff6bc$0$1950
>$:
>
>> 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.

This was when you confused what the iPhone can do on wifi with what the
iPhone does on 3G, right?

Todd Allcock <> wrote in
news:Xu5Mm.36732$%:

> At 15 Nov 2009 05:18:02 +0000 Larry wrote:
>> The Other Guy <> wrote in
>> news::
>>
>> > 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/
>>
>
> 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.
>
>
>

Er, ah, like HTC's new one?

http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=14588

http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/06/p...ra-thin-wimax-
smartphone-this-year/
or Palms?

Or Samsung's?
http://www.electronista.com/articles...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/s...sed-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

digi wrote:
> 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.

"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <> 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 ****
>> 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 *** 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.

wrote:
> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <> 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 ****
>>> 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.

wrote:

> 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!