Re: Has Verizon Hoodwinked America?

Are you employed by AT&T?

"Verizon Wireless to charge up to $350 early termination fees"
<> wrote in message
news:7795b68b-e28d-44ff-9dc0-...
> http://www.appleiphoneschool.com/wp-...ncoverage2.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...d_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 wrote:
> 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.

In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <> 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.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

wrote:

> 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.

"Don R." <> wrote in news:-
:

> 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

In article <Xns9CC0AD6638FE4noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>,
Larry <> wrote:

> 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.

You can activate and swap phones for free, if you pay close attention.

In alt.cellular.cingular Don R. <> wrote:
> 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-...ncoverage2.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.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

In alt.cellular.cingular Don R. <> wrote:
> 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-...ncoverage2.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.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

In alt.cellular.cingular Dennis Ferguson <> 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.

> 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?

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Not evrybody lives in a metropolitian area. My wife and I are moving to
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.


>
> 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.