SMS <> writes:
> 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.
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.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
