Verizon removes gloves, begins 'There's a map for that' anti-AT&T ad campaign (video)
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted October 5th 2009 11:06PM
posted October 5th 2009 11:06PM
[Via All Things Digital]
posted October 5th 2009 11:06PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Too bad Verizon's phones suck.
Bring the Pre to Verizon!!!
So does that mean Sprint is going to have "There's a phone for that!"?
sure is alot of blue on that map! oh boy?
yeah national coverage doesn't matter to much to me. theres 3g where i need it here (home), the city where my college is and about 3 other cities i frequent. theres a reason why verizon has the largest fastest network there plans are the most expensive and they regulate what goes on their network the most.
Verizon customers are blue because their phones are sorry (hopefully that will change) and AT&T customers see red because their bills are high for sorry service.
We need the Sholes nao!
Actually that Samsung Rogue that was shown just for a sec at the end of the commercial is a nice phone...
Guess it's a little better than "iPhone... We passed on that"
If Verzion and AT&T wants some boxing gloves, I'm definitely won't mind getting them some along with T-Mobile because in the end it's us the customers that will get the best deals.
Yeah well I'd rather have good service with widely available 3G than to think I look cool carrying a "cool" phone around. Can't wait to dump my iPhone and get back to enjoying good service while not getting ripped off.
What tripe. I've had Verizon since before they were Verizon and I've had great coverage with every LG phone I've ever used. The enV Touch is my current phone and I love the damned thing to the point that two other people at work also bought it and love theirs.
But, by all means, don't stop me from letting you paint with that massive brush just because Verizon doesn't have {everyone bow down and worship} -- THE iPHONE!!
Dum dum dummmmmmmmm!!!!
Whatever. Stop buying from Verizon's list of shitty phones and you won't have a problem.
Nothing bugs me more than seeing billboards in nyc (one on the west side highway at least) with AT&T boasting "fastest 3G network" when that should read "fastest 3G network that 1/3 people can connect to" (in manhattan, at least).
Picked up the pre last week and have been very happy with it/sprint. Paying $15 less for a lot more (a real 3g network, turn by turn directions, NFL network live video, unlimited net/MMS/texting for $70).
Be nice if the ATT coverage I'm supposed to have in NY was even there. Dropped calls all the time, dead zones everywhere. If I could move my iPhone to Verizon I would. Even if the performance was about the same, at least id have a nice phone, tv, internet, cell bundle. I like my iPhone, but I'll give it up in a couple years if ATT remains shitty. By then I'm sure iPhone features will be fairly ordinary.
I would have replied quicker. But I had to wait on my iPhones slow Internet. :(
They already are pretty standard features.
I guess T-Mobile's slogan will be "There's some crap for that."
Ran a speed test with my iPhone 3GS here in NJ the other day, 1.6 MBits, eat that Vzw.
Unlocked?... not an option, huh?
I cant help but notice that Map sounds alot like App....probably trying to get the attention of iPhone users. Verizon, if you had the iPhone I'd switch in a heart beat or less....but this phone is too good, im suckered onto AT&T till you guys can cut a deal with Apple.
I live in a very blue portion according to the AT&T map and almost always have 3 bars, unfortunately it doesn't stop my super amazing, never going to give it up, hoping like hell it moves to verizon, iphone from dropping several calls a day. A tip to other iphone users, if you don't actually move, there are a lot less dropped calls.
I ran a speed test with my iPhone the other day, on 3G. .14 Mbps. Don't go too fast AT&T.
No kidding. All the 3G coverage in the world isn't going to do you any good when there's no decent phones to consume it with.
Verizon: We have awesome coverage as long as you want a Blackberry.
Is Verizon 3G map all EVDO covered?
Or did that includes 1X coverage inside?
If they includes 1X, then AT&T's EDGE coverage should be included in comparison too.
They forget to mention the white bit is the coverage.
Verizon will have the pre and two new google phone's
@Raymond
By Qualcomm's definition, CDMA2000 1xRTT is 3G. EDGE is 2.5G. The problem is that most people relate generation with speed when generation, by definition, is a stage of technological development. Since CDMA's 3G (1xRTT) isn't as fast as GSM's 3G, people say that it isn't 3G and thus label EVDO as 3G. Verizon, though most of their network is EVDO Rev. A, are right to include 1xRTT in their 3G comparison (though obviously misleading to the definition of 3G that most consumers utilize); however, they definitely have more EVDO Rev. A coverage vs. W-CDMA/HSPA coverage from AT&T (I would say about 3x as much).
In Albany, NY, I get average speeds of around 500Kbps on AT&T. I was under the impression that the actual speeds you get on a mobile carrier are going to be less than the maximum rated speed (3.2Mbps in this case) due to network congestion. My friend and I both have full bars at work. He is on Sprint and I'm on AT&T. I constantly beat his data speeds.
So really, until they upgrade the towers around here to 7.2, I don't really care. My bro has an enV Touch, and I'd never in a million years take one over even my old 2G iPhone. But I'm not an iPhone fanboy by any means. I got the 3GS because it was the best choice for browsing the web, with the Pre coming in a close second. I'm not even sure I'd switch to Verizon if it was the only carrier to get the 3GS. I hate Verizon. Good coverage with terrible service. Misleading ads about apps on the new enV's, charging for everything under the sun (VISUAL VOICEMAIL?? REALLY?!).
If I had to pick a network right now, all phones aside, it would be neither Apps nor Maps. It would be Sprint, for $70/mo. They got it right. I still hate Verizon the most though.
I agree with the statement that National coverage doesn't matter. My AT&T phone works everywhere *I* go, my friend with Verizon cannot say the same. My friends verizon phones don't work in my house, they have to go outside to send a text. I get 3 bars of 3g inside. What good is 3g coverage out in the boonies? I don't go there. I'm sure it's great for some people, but I like getting my text messages in the comfort of my own home.
I live in the boonies and have EVDO on sprint.
@VDubb
If you are talking the Definitions,
By the definition of International Telecommunication Union,
EDGE is 3G
Here we go again, one company against another company. I think Verizon may have push really far this time - Hilarity and Exaggeration may not come in one piece. I hope after this bout, Verizon can still find their sense of humor.
more source: http://bit.ly/ATandT-vs-Verizon-Theres-a-map-for-that-hoax
its good to see kids fighting over a cookie jar sometimes :D
And so, it begins....FIGHT!!
At&t has the places that matter though.
Exhibit a
http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/wyoming-who-cares-1.jpg
etc
Um... Verizon? Hate to break it to you guys, but you don't offer ANY service in Alaska, PERIOD. You can roam at 1x speeds on the local CDMA network, but that's about it. There have been rumors about Verizon plans to offer local service here starting in 2010, but those are only rumors, and as of last month, nothing has been filed with the FCC on the matter.
As for AT&T, they offer 3G in every major city here, and have bumped up their coverage in a big way over the last two years. Someone should let the guys in the PR department know that their map is a sack of crap. Email? There's an App for that.
@Cash
do you guys have technology in alaska?? I thought it was sort of ice age times there.
Alaska has major cities!
I like it when Shit fights Crap while Manure and Excrement watch from the sidelines.
Yeah I saw this tonight during the Packers vs. Vikings game. Got a good laugh out of it. If anything, I hope this would convince Apple to let the iphone go to other carriers besides just AT&T.
You know, Apple asked Verizon first, and Verizon turned them down...
I thought I was the only Engadget reader who watched football. Me and my friends sit around having a cup of beer and watching the sporting event.
@Joe
Yeah, I mentioned that in a comment down further. Which is worth another laugh considering that they have to acknowledge the success of a phone that they could have had.
@mulerobot
From Wisconsin here, so of course I have to watch at least part of it.
A cup of beer huh? Yeah I usually just have a can or bottle....
lesser of two evils?
Wow, that looks amazingly similar to the typical electoral maps.
very true.
newsflash! cities with people in them... aren't stupid!
It's also why the Electoral College is so important. If we moved to a majority vote, presidents would only need to convince the top 10 cities and farmers (who make up a major part of our economy) would be left out in the cold and wouldn't have a voice. It's already pretty sad how they pay a majority share of property taxes to educate the children, but they have the least say in the raising of such taxes. It makes me wonder what would happen if voting were based on the amount of land you owned.
Amount of land owned? I see no potential for abuse in that system! It'll sure give the little guys a say!
(Exclamation marks. The new cruise control for cool)
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
In response to Andir3.0
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
see www.NationalPopularVote.com
No kidding there isn't a decent phone to take advantage of the 3g coverage. Also I don't know if I want 3g where I live when I'm in town 3g kills my battery.