AT&T responds to Verizon's 3G ad campaign -- by bragging about EDGE
By Nilay Patel 
posted November 12th 2009 7:17PM
posted November 12th 2009 7:17PM
My iPhone 3GS, in downtown Chicago, as I wrote this post.
Right, right -- the only difference. That must be why Apple named it the iPhone EDGE Slightly Faster.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.
Now, AT&T has a valid point when it says that its 3G map covers 75 percent of the nation's population, and that Verizon's conflation of total 3G coverage with actual network quality is slightly misleading. But you know what? We watch our iPhones drop from 3G to EDGE and even to GPRS all day long in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, and that has nothing to do with the damn map, and everything to do with AT&T's actual network quality. Let's put it this way: Verizon's ad campaign would be totally ineffective if it didn't ring so true, and the best way for AT&T to counter these ads is to build a rock-solid network, not filing lawsuits and issuing press releases bragging about freaking EDGE. We all clear on this? Good.
ATT edge is the same speed as verizon's EVDO "3G". ATT's 3G is true HS(D?)PA 7.2 MBPS. comparing them is like comparing fiber optic and cable.
I'll tell you one thing. Someone's really popular to get 300 Unread Messages. Either that or he unflagged his entire inbox to get that high of a number. I can't wait to leave DC's blackout area to even play my game the map almost seems correct from Verizon's standpoint.
I think AT&T is being inappropriately dinged as a corporation for its network quality when the real culprit may be the poor user scalability of GSM. Stories from every iPhone-selling country suggest that providers all took a big dive in perceived network quality the moment the iPhone started accumulating in large numbers there. CDMA has an easier time providing scalable coverage with fewer towers and with more graceful degradation when there are many users (each user adds to the perceived noise floor, but there isn't an issue of all the available channel/time-slot combinations being exhausted). Of course, CDMA has far poorer mobility given the ubiquity of GSM around the globe so, until every phone has either dual capabilities or moves to a merged 4G standard, we're stuck with this tradeoff.
If Verizon succeeds in drawing large numbers of smartphone power users, we'll get to see in practice how well their network scales.
When I bought my Iphone 3G I had no 3G service in the ATT store which is in the middle of a 3G service area on ATT's map (Gilbert Arizona). I asked and they said " yeah it sucks that we don't have service in our store, please try out our free Wifi connection!".
Well it was too late then -- I live 1/2 mile from the store. 90% of my calls I receive at my house are dropped or I can't hear the people speak. I've called customer service for ATT and they tell me "everything is working correctly, we have no outages". It's a complete joke and I'll be gone from ATT when my contract is up next summer, along with half of the iphone 3g population.
I wonder what would happen on Verizon's network if 14 million iPhone users were hogging up its network...
I live in Orange County and work in Downtown LA. I commute between the two via train and I also spend lots of time in San Diego where I take the train. It works in all those places and during the commutes.
But, with that, the second the iPhone is available on another network, I'll jump ship.
The map doesn't matter. I would only ever want to live, or generally be, in the places that happen to have ATT 3G coverage.
Oh no! I can't get coverage in Central Montana! Boo Hoo.
I mean, really? The important metro areas are fully covered. The rest is flyover.
So it seems like all I hear from bloggers/writers here at Engadget and Gizmodo are complaints about AT&T in the large urban areas they live and work in. It sounds like they would jump ship if the iPhone was offered with another carrier.
My question is: is it worth going to a carrier you don't really prefer just for a phone? T-Mobile is one example - they have a lot of different phones I'd like to try out, but in my area there's absolutely NO 3G coverage at all. AT&T's 3G coverage is pretty good where I am, it's almost never on EDGE; Texas in general seems to have great 3G coverage for any AT&T phone I've had.
Sprint is another company that has a line up I'd like to check out, plus unlimited mobile calling for a little bit more on your plan. If a phone is that awesome, should I change to a company I don't really want to care for? I mean I like GSM phones because you can roam with them (but I have to be honest, I don't travel overseas too often).
All I know is that I can be on the phone and send email at the same time, I can switch devices at will by switching SIMs, and I have the fastest data.... What network am I on... AT&T of course.
Sure, they could spend billions in infrastructural improvement to their backend. Or just spend a few mill in squashing some (entirely appropriate) marketing material from a competitor.
I am one of the many who began service with AT&T so that I could enjoy the shiny, beautiful iPhone. In doing so I quickly realized that I had to keep my Verizon phone just for the sake of having a reliable phone service.
I can drive all over Portland with Verizon and not drop a call. With AT&T I drop 70 percent of the time in my living room sitting still in the massage chair... never mind driving around Portland... I have to plan my phone calls through the city because of the lack of coverage in numerous places (right in the downtown metro area!)
I am really hoping the rumors of the iPhone coming to Verizon eventually are true, because I am anxious to dump my contract entirely with AT&T. They are THAT BAD. The iPhone itself however is a beautiful design however.
I think all of the AT&T customers should keep quiet and stop defending their choice. Once people start leaving their network, then it should lighten the load thus making them happy. So ssssshhhhh.....
"Verizon's ad campaign would be totally ineffective if it didn't ring so true, and the best way for AT&T to counter these ads is to build a rock-solid network, not filing lawsuits and issuing press releases bragging about freaking EDGE."
Amen to that.
AT&T is in complete denial about their reputation. EVERYONE in SoCal has the impression that AT&T sucks, and Verizon's network rocks.
Here's a typical conversation:
"Man, AT&T sucks. I have no reception here!"
"I have full reception."
"Who do you have, Verizon?"
"Yeah."
"STFU with your Verizon ass."
AT&T is not exactly trustworthy on any of this stuff. Their wonderful new U-verse fiber-optic based television service with DVR, etc. is in standard definition. Yes, you heard right. You have to pay an extra $10 per month ("technology fee") to get HD. Nice. Oh yeah, I would trust everything they say about their cell phone service. Right.
where did you get the engadget app i cant find it in the app store?? is it a blog like TUAW?
lol AT&T just blows with coverage. I'd like for the IPhone to hit all carriers, but then you wouldn't have as much competition to get better phones (like the Verizon touch screens, other shit im not a big phone fanatic, these topics just interest me.) and I think Apple and AT&T are meant for each other... Or maybe its a Monopoly and no one knows Steve Jobs owns AT&T! Do we have another Microsoft on our hands?
Engadget APP?????
Actually, AT&T's 3G isn't much faster than their 2G because their 3G network sucks ass...
hey - where can I score that engadget app?
i dont get at&t 1st name its mobile line at&t mobile than it merge whit sbc which owns cingular and at&t mobile becomes cingular and i guess it sells where low and change names again. im no fortune teller but i think there name will change to...