Editorial: Hey, AT&T -- drop lawsuits, not calls
By Chris Ziegler 
posted Nov 13th 2009 1:33PM
posted Nov 13th 2009 1:33PM
- Verbiage on Verizon's site suggests that swaths of its 3G network are still running at EV-DO Rev. 0 speed: false. In fact, 100 percent of Verizon's 3G coverage has been Rev. A since 2007 -- the wording refers to 1xRTT, which is the transport technology in use where EV-DO hasn't been deployed.
- You can't distinguish between EV-DO and 1xRTT on Verizon's coverage map: false. Turns out Verizon has one of the more comprehensive coverage browsers among top-tier carriers. The technologies aren't called out by name, but they're there -- they list compatible features in different coverage zones, ostensibly to reduce customer confusion since your average Joe (not to be confused with our own Joe Flatley) doesn't know or care what "1xRTT" means.
- EDGE approaches the "low end" of EV-DO Rev. A: false. At the top end of the specification, EDGE can theoretically approach 500kbps in a cleanroom environment -- but in reality, it runs at a fraction of that and suffers more severe latency issues in practice (which is sometimes a greater detriment to a mobile web browsing experience than raw speed) than UMTS and EV-DO. Heck, AT&T itself claims 75-135kbps. Meanwhile, we got 823kbps on the downlink in real-world modem use on Verizon's Rev. A.
- AT&T's 3.6Mbps and 7.2Mbps deployments are significantly faster than EV-DO Rev. A: true, but only in theory. We're getting downlink speeds ranging from the low 100s -- yes, 100s -- to the high 800s in Chicago and New York; Chicago's got a trial 7.2Mbps network that's live, but even if we're not connected to it (hard to say), we should still be on 3.6. We seriously have no idea what AT&T's doing behind the scenes with these rollouts, but in urban areas, at least, they're not helping. At all. And that's assuming we can help ourselves from dropping down to EDGE.
- AT&T's service is augmented by the nation's largest WiFi network: we won't even justify that with a rebuttal.
- Verizon's gaming the system by comparing only their 3G networks: the truth hurts, AT&T. Verizon's commercials would have you believe that by comparing only 3G coverage, Verizon wins by a country mile. And guess what? They do. To AT&T's credit, the 3GPP's WCDMA technology path is considerably more advanced and extensible than EV-DO Rev. A is, but beyond UMTS's simultaneous voice / data capability, the end user's experience is pretty similar in day-to-day use. We go where the faster real-world speeds (and the reliable calls) are.
- Verizon is "defending steep losses" with its anti-AT&T, anti-iPhone commercials: false. Verizon added 1.2 million net customers in the most recently reported quarter, excluding acquisitions.
- LTE is "still years away from viable use" on Verizon: false. They'll have 20-30 markets commercially live in 2010, which is 20-30 more than AT&T will have. It's not nationwide coverage by a long shot, but it gives the carrier a notable lead in the 4G transition since AT&T has sparsely detailed its LTE plans and isn't expected to go live with any markets until 2011 at the earliest.
So listen, AT&T, we're sorry Verizon made you upset, but the solution's actually pretty simple: compete. Fix your network, keep scoring hot exclusives, and get hungry again -- because in a year or two, no one's going to give a damn that you used to have an exclusive on the iPhone.
Verizon is the best.
At raising early termination fees and charging for airtime you never actually used.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue-email.html?_r=1
I'm just tired of my iPhone dropping calls.
A 30% dropped call rate is ridiculous and should be regulated.
True that! AT&T has always sucked and is only still alive because they got the iPhone (after Verizon denied Apple).
Chad,
Don't forget charging people out the ass for undesired 'data' usage as a corporate strategy, then telling customer service reps to NOT ALLOW customers to disable data usage to avoid getting overbilled (in the same article you linked).
Glad I don't live in SF or NYC for many reasons. Constant dropped calls are only one of those reasons. ATT sure doesn't have the best coverage in the world, but it works as well as any network I've ever used for my purposes, and I don't have to get scammed by Verizon which is nice. Still waiting for my part of the Verizon ETF class action settlement.
@Chad
If you think AT&T won't be raising their ETF to match Verizon's, you're kidding yourself. AT&T and Verizon's policies are only different in the short period of time in between one of them making a move, and the other one catching up.
Now that's what Im talking about!!!!!!
Ma' bell just hit the wall!!
Let's face it, AT&T service really sucks, especially in Manhattan!!!*
*AT&T has the nation's fastest 3G network. This network covers 233 million people or 75% of the population. All AT&T 3G devices connect to AT&T's EDGE network covering 301 million people or 96% of the population. 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 --CONNECTION TERMINATED--
And Verizon "denying" Apple was obviously a big mistake. Not something to be proud of.
@Hey Ya
Who said anything about AT&T? I have and love my T-Mobile service where I live. If I traveled a lot I might feel different but I don't. I don't particularly like either AT&T or Verizon. You might want to actually read the article I linked to since it's about more than the ETF.
Not something to be proud of, and a bad move in hindsight, but really not that stupid on their part.
Apple didn't roll in and say "Hey, we have this device that we think is pretty cool. Would you like to have it on your network?"
They rolled in with zero experience/credibility in the phone building industry and made demands for an unprecedented type of hardware maker to service provider agreement. That's why the first gen iPhone didn't make it into so many markets. Apple had a hard time finding people who would bend to their will. AT&T took the gamble and won.
Now, the relationship between Apple and the service providers is more normal (still not completely though, Apple got some well deserved bargaining power for creating such a successful product). Because of this, the iPhone is available pretty much everywhere.
This is a matter of opinion and circumstance. Personally, I switched from Verizon to AT&T and have been nothing but happy so far. While Verizon's network was clearly superior in coverage, where I live I've got perfect 3G coverage, and I have perfect EDGE coverage where my parents live (mediocre 3G, but there will be new towers soon I'm told). Until a year ago, there was only 1xRTT coverage from Verizon where my parents lived, and that didn't even allow me to send MMS, let alone connect to the web or VCast or any other service. EV-DO coverage is now great there, but here's the catch: it's not actually Verizon towers. Ergo, whenever I'm at my parent's house, I'm in an "Extended Network," meaning that all of Verizon's services are unavailable. Even with EDGE on AT&T, I can still access the entire Internet and all services with my iPhone, and my parents can still use all of their services with their Samsung dumbphones. Now, I understand that this is not the majority case, but it is my case, so for me it's hard to say that "Verizon is the best."
Then comes the matter of price and options. Verizon's prices for features are by and large expensive. I was paying $10 a month for 500 messages, per line. With AT&T, I can get unlimited messages on all the phones on my plan for $30 a month. Overage charges at Verizon were a joke, and considering that they don't offer rollover minutes, I was none too happy about the $20 overage charges for going 30 minutes over my minute limit one month, despite the fact that I had been about 600 minutes below the limit every month for the 3 and half years before that. Then the phones: they have a decent selection of dumbphones, but half the time they've dumbed them down even worse than stock because they use their own proprietary (crap) OS. Go ahead and read online about the crap they pulled with the Razr V3; it's not pretty. Their smartphone selection is getting better with Droid, but when I was a customer, it was pretty muchBlackberry or Windows... and neither are going to do a good job of taking advantage of that "superior" network. This isn't even mentioning the crap they pull with their smartphones (like removing WiFi and memory). But, this is a largely personal choice, so if you argue that Verizon doesn't have the iPhone or the Pre, one could also argue that AT&T and Sprint don't have Droid, so that's just a preference thing.
But to say that Verizon is the best just because they have the best coverage is, to be honest, just an opinion. I've never had a dropped call with either Verizon or AT&T, so I'll go with the one that can give me more features for less money.
I disagree with the data charges on lines without data plans, it happened to my brother and dad a couple of times since we switched to the new "Nationwide" plan. What should be done is that the first MB every month is free, so in case of any accidental button presses they won't ever add up to be that much. Still, there is some misinformation. The data charges are cumulative, it's not $1.99 every time the internet is accessed. Also, it's now possible to change most of the buttons on the dumbphones to functions other than the internet, and even better: you can log into your account online and block data right there in 2 minutes. A service rep will also do this for you with no problem - saying they won't is not true, and if that was the case, it's so easy to do it online.
Seriously though who gives a shit. They are both giant telecoms that could give a crap about you, the customer, and bend you over at every single opportunity they can possibly take. I love how people argue about it as if these Corporations actually care about the consumer. Please! They don't care and the FCC needs to crack down on all of them, not just AT&T or Verizon they all do shady business even the Cable provides (looking at Comcast) need to be audited for their business practices and policies. There is a lot of stink that needs to be looked at, and they owe us the consumer a lot of money and explanation for their crap service and policies.
Who cares if Verizon "cares" about me as a person. They are more interested in optimizing the customer experience for as many of their customers as possible. I have no delusions that they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They strive to provide the best customer experience possible because that will net them more customers and make them more money.
If things change, and Verizon starts sucking it up, I'm gone. I have no allegiance, but for now... they are the best for me.
It's pretty damn good but Sprint is cheaper, also has the same speeds on EVDO Rev. A, and roams for free on Verizon towers when you are in a Verizon-only area. VZW does definitely have the more extensive network but when you roam on it free for less, I think you get the better deal.
I'm using a T-Mobile G1 on AT&T's network (it's locked to EDGE) and while I've never had any issues with dropped calls, I don't live in an extremely densely populated area either. Bandwidth speeds are around 50kbps-200kbps and EDGE data is very iffy (there are many dead spots).
IME, all carriers suck. They just suck in different ways (and levels) in different locations.
I live in San Diego. I started with Sprint many years back and I couldn't use my phone at home unless I walked outside into my front driveway. I finally switched to Verizon who was marginally better. When I canceled the Sprint account, the rep on the phone wondered if I'd stay with them if I got a discount. I asked him what good would that do when I couldn't use my phone inside my house? He, of course, had no answer to that and closed the account out.
Another couple years later I switched back to Sprint when they got the Treo 650s and had vastly improved their coverage in my area. I was relatively happy with them for some time.
Now I have AT&T because I wanted an iPhone. Yes, I have drunk mightily from the Apple kool-aid and find that it goes down very well. Sue me. :P In the last 14 months I've had it (a 3G) my experience has been mostly very good. Coverage has been great at most places. I've had a few places I don't visit very often that had little to no signal (or I dropped to Edge) but to be honest, it's been no worse then either Sprint or Verizon are. I've had exactly 1 dropped call that I know was my end (ironically my dad, on Verizon, drops while talking me to quite often while I have full signal), I'll caveat that with I'm not much of a phone user. I txt far more, and those never fail for me. I also use the ipod functionality, gps and other apps tons more then the phone. Having it all in one unit is what won me over though.
I'm going to count the number of times I've canceled a contract in my life and had to pay an early termination fee... wait for it:
0
What are you doing wrong?
So let me get this straight. Some Engadget editor (not an engineer mind you) puts up a picture of an App running on an iPhone and uses it as "proof" that there are severe network deficiencies? All the while the guy with the $50 Nokia standing next to him is having no such problems! Could it be that some phones have CRAP ASS RADIOS?! Why not also add phone radio tests to the equation?
The other big issue at play here is not new but a typical corporate one and that is, how do you remain subjective when one side in the debate is PAYING YOU TO POST GINORMOUS ADS ON YOUR BLOG. ZiEGGLER PLEASE!!!
So is Sprint, we may not have the size of Verizon but our tech is the same and we roam on your massive network .. for free ;)
I wish Verizon would buy Sprint and combine their networks and crush Att to non existence.
BUT KEEP SPRINTS PRICING!!
Also, Does Sprint has the fastest internet? Yes both 3G and 4G.
@johnson4412
Hate to break it to you but you get unlimited texting on all lines on Verizon for $30 a month as well, so not sure how you see that as paying "more for less." And no, coverage is not a "matter of opinion." Great, you are in one of the few places where AT&T has better coverage for Verizon. It is not like that for most of the country. So venture outside of your personal bubble and see what most of the country sees: an overcrowded AT&T network that can't handle the strain of 10 million + iPhone users.
Cost to publish a blog: $10
Cost to build nationwide wireless voice & data network: $50,000,000
Destined to write for a blog for life: Priceless!
realistically, nobody here should care about which cell service someone else prefers, but something about the Verizon nut jobs creep me out. You guys are like a freaking cult. So I gotta add my two cents here.
I agree with the high ranked poster above that switched to AT&T. It may suck for certain areas, but I get fantastic coverage in the capital region of upstate NY. Every time I check my phone with a Verizon user near me, we have similar signal strength. Only when I'm in seriously rural areas will I get a lapse in coverage, but even then I can manage to make and keep calls. So I guess, in short, sucks for you guys in the city, AT&T is fantastic for me around where I live and where I work.
No, this quote: "AT&T has sparsely detailed its LTE plans and isn't expected to go live with any markets until 2011 at the earliest." I think what is most important here is that AT&T plans to double their spectrum... wouldn't that be the most important factor in giving voice and data more room to breathe? It may slightly improve speeds of the current technology, but doubling the spectrum for AT&T would rid the congested areas of the incredibly high dropped call rate. Wouldn't do much for rural areas lacking coverage, but meh. Verizon, on the other hand, can't afford more spectrum, as EVDO already requires a buttfull to operate.
In my humble opinion, defending a cellular carrier is like trying to view the positive personality features of Hitler, but I do view AT&T as the lesser of the two evils. Sprint is awesome for pretty much leading the price wars, and T-Mobile is awesome for saying no to the CIA. Neither Verizon or AT&T are awesome. But I didn't know any of this crap years ago when I switched, and as much as I hate Apple and want freedom from the iPhone, I have yet to see a better mobile web experience, and that's my #1 feature in a cellphone right now. I'm gonna click Add Comment before I go on a tangent on mobile OS's and emerging cellphone hardware.
I can't believe I have a girlfriend 0_o
at&t on my htc tilt is pretty much awesome... the girlfiend's iphone when she's standing next to me at the same location is sometimes subpar. I NEVER drop calls on at&t with the tilt. she's often asking me if there's a firmware update because her iphone is frustrating. sooo I think the hardware has much to do with the dropped call issue.
The iphone has one problem. It is not that great of a phone. It does everything else quite well though....
Ouch! Thems is fightin' words. Watch AT&T pull their ads and sue Engadget too!
I'm Chris Zeigler and, you don't wanna rile me man.
You messed with the wrong mother f***er today, AT&T.
I'm like a cyclone, wrapped in a hurricane, nestled in a box of tsunamis.
"I'm like a cyclone, wrapped in a hurricane, nestled in a box of tsunamis."
He might be an N900!
This article really lays down the smack.
Then again, I recommend people DON'T read AppleInsider anyways. It's one of those rare cases where reading makes you stupider.
@Sisyphus
Love the David Cross reference...one of the best out there!
Are you also super fly TNT and the guns of the Navaronne?
Bend over and take it AT&T. The truth hurts really bad sometimes. :)
Truth... is it too late to change my penis's name?
Wierd how everyone is hating on AT&T, while they take VZ customers nationwide at a rate of 3-1, have better net gains in customer base and lower churn. Maybe if verizon had a heavy data device which over 10 million of their customers were using, you would have a different experience. Truth is, VZ has jack for phones, and their consumer base is mostly feature phones, not PDA's. In fact, at the rate AT&T is snatching up customers, they'll overtake VZ within the year. Truth hurts
Called ATT a few weeks back, they will let me cancel all four accounts at no charge!
North phoenix sucks for AT&T, going to Verizon.
Really??? My parents live at fireside in north Phoenix next to a mountain and just switched from Verizon to AT&T cause they couldnt get a signal.
Im not saying AT&T is better, It just matters on what works for you. Obviously Verizon "the nations best carrier" was not working for them, so they switched.
If you cant call or receive a call, What the hell do u have that company for. For all of you that have at&t and have a iphone in new york ect... then get the F**K off my network and switch already I am tired of hearing you bi**h.
woah! Put the gun down man!!
Hey Engadget I have a serious question. Is it possible for you guys to do a test (data and voice) of AT&T's network with different phones other than the iPhone. I know AT&T's network is pretty bad (especially in crowded cities like NYC) but I haven't had any problems with my Nokia. And because the iPhone is pretty much the most popular phone on AT&T, any other phone is easily overshadowed. What do you guys think?
I'm not positive, but I think josh alluded to this in one of the recent podcasts.... that the iphone seemingly dropped calls more frequently than some of the blackberries that were also on ATT's network.
Anyway, i would be interested as well in some comparison of phones on the ATT network and call drop frequency.
So how come you get ranked up for asking for someone to get together and organize a *real* test, but I get ranked down for it?
Nonsensical much?
@nerdtalker
haha i have no idea. For awhile there I was getting worried that everybody was ignoring it.
*sigh*
I just want some real hard evidence. I don't care either way. It just doesn't add up for me that's all.
Cudos to Verizon though for taking a stab at them
@ nerdtalker: My guess is because Galen asked nicely, instead of sounding like someone kicked his baby. Besides, it seemed like you didn't actually read the AppleInsider piece, which this editorial was a response to.
I think that is a great point. Since when has the iPhone ever been touted as the end all be all of reception devices??
I have a Tilt 2 / Touch Pro 2, running WinMo 6.5.1. Guess what, best reception I have EVER had on AT&T. One thing that made me laugh with all of this. I was camping recently and out of 10, 10 different cell phones, I was the ONLY phone who had reception. We had all carriers there too.
In conclusion, stop testing with the iPhone alone. Try multiple phones on the networks. Where I live in Northern California (around Sacramento) I have 3G HSDPA day in / day out. I usually pull 1.5 mb to 2.2 mb, all day every day on my Tilt 2.
I guess... results may vary. 8)
You'll never find out the answer.
With gel-covers, hard covers, battery issues, usage issues, etc... dropped calls can be due to the iPhone or the network, what bad is AT&T offers other phones, so you can get an idea of their call-drop rate, but having Apple and its fanboys behind the iPhone, you'll never know that side of the equation. Hence a zero sum game (though, AT&T get the blame since all telcos have a bad wrap nowadays).
Verizon, please switch to HSPA.
No.
Verizon: "We never stop working for you."
Hey ... I don't see what the hullabaloo is all about.
AT&T can sue Verizon, then use that money to make their 3G better.
Sounds like the perfect diabolical plan to me.
;)
You would be assuming that this money actually gets used wisely by AT&T... (looking who has done better, I would trust VW a bit more)
You have to win the lawsuit first.
You forget the part where AT&T loses the case, Verizon counter-sues, wins, and makes their network even better
Good thing Editorials don't have to post any empirical data huh?
I like you guys and all, but your bias is showing.
Yes, I can definitely assure you that I'm biased against any network that regularly drops my calls. Guilty as charged.
Care to elaborate? It's easy to throw accusations around, but how about showing some of this empirical data yourself?
There is empirical data (albeit not truly scientific). Just click the scattered links.
Chris, I was going to up rank you, but there is no +/-/!
Did you guys remove them for your posters? That's rather slimy.
I'm gonna have to agree with Seraphim here, this is little more than a loosely supported opinion piece.
Until you guys get your act together and do some real, bona-fide testing that gives us signal strength (RSSI, not stupid bars) and the speeds, and perhaps a map, you're just blowing smoke and making arbitrary judgements.
The fact of the matter is that this is a complicated multipath problem that's dependent on both network load, congestion, time of day (yes, cellular breathing) and other things.
Even more, I find that the speedtest.net app is significantly slower than the xtreme speedtest app. In fact, even that isn't as good as simply tethering and running a real FTP transaction and watching for the speed to stabilize. At least with GSM you won't see your data interrupted every single time you get a text message. That gets pretty annoying in CDMA2000 land.
That's exactly what I've been saying. I really think it might have more to do with the iPhone than AT&T's network. Can anybody post data and evidence that this is or isn't the case?
hahaha did you guys seriously remove voting on editor comments because you were upset when people made it clear they disagreed with you
Nerdtalker, really? You want a map? A map of what? The US?
Chris, good job. I'm tired of people attacking Verizon for this.
It would be one thing if Verizon was targeting T-Mobile like this, considering the substantial differences in prices. AT&T deserves this. They charge high prices, but where does the profit go? Who knows, but it certainly isn't into their network
@nerdtalker and @ Seraphim Did both of your forget the very expansive (compared to any contemporary efforts) PC World test from earlier this year? They pretty much verified that AT&T and T-Mobile have spotty coverage and that Verizon and Sprint have comprehensive and reliable networks. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
@ Seraphim - I agree sometimes bias cant get in the way, but unfortunately on this piece writing the call for bias never made it thru.. must have been the nature of AT&T's network.. Hmmmm.
This editorial is very well deserved, and I humbly give my kudos to Chris Ziegler for putting such a well thought out information.
Thanks!!!!
Chris, the tone of your many articles seem to suggest that you are getting paid by Big Red to write snippy articles bashing AT&T. I question the validity of your articles since many of them seem to have anti-AT&T sentiment. Perhaps you should recuse yourself from writing any more articles since it's clear that you can't be impartial. It's sufficeth to say that maybe people should decide for themselves which carriers work best for them based on where they live, work, and play. Just an opinion of course, I can only speak for myself.
Seriously, that's the best thing you guys came up with before you douche-waltzed into this comment thread?
Chris is not only being editorial, he's being FACTUAL. Where are YOUR links, facts and data to suggest either Chris is being untrue, bias or totally opinionated?
And if the only defense you have is "Chris, the tone of your many articles seem to suggest that you are getting paid by Big Red to write snippy articles bashing AT&T." then you're gonna lose this argument faster than AT&T drops calls on my 5800!
Chris, are you in New York? It's pretty well known that AT&T's network is crap in NY but fine just about everywhere else. I always have 4-5 bars in 3G wherever I go in my area, and my speedtest showed 943kb down (average, peaking at about 1.1Mb), 354 up and about 1/5th of your latency at 422ms.
You still cannot argue that Verizon's 3G is FASTER, because it isn't. You also can't say AT&T's network is horrible everywhere, because it isn't. There seems to be this sort of "AT&T sucks everywhere" attitude that really isn't true, and you're helping to foster that misunderstanding.
It's almost as if some people believe Verizon has 100% perfect coverage everywhere. If you ask around, you'll find plenty of people whose Verizon coverage blows goats. And finally, AT&T has a right to be pissed at Verizon when their ads make it look like AT&T has barely any coverage anywhere. People associate that with not being able to make calls, which as you pointed out, is not true.
Chris may be basing his opinion on actual facts of HIS EXPERIENCE but that doesn't equate to the national experience. This post is EXTREMELY biased based on the poor service he's received from AT&T. The tone of this article makes one believe that his experience is the singular experience with the AT&T network. It's not.
I'm in Baltimore and I have great AT&T coverage. It's fast 3G and I rarely ever have problems getting service (can't remember the last time I had a dropped call). In fact, the only time I've really had issue with AT&T service was at a Sprint Cup Nascar race ;) The towers were a bit overwhelmed, but that's understandable.
It's pathetic how many of you are defending AT&T. Their networks sucks, period. It's just a fact. Yes, it's faster - when it works. Almost everyone with AT&T complains about dropped calls. It's what you get with their network. Who in their right mind would defend them other than an Apple fanboy?
@nerdtalker
I'm rather curious as to the reason you got ranked down. You made a rather valid argument regarding testing methods.
But that's just the scientist in me
Great article Chris. You nailed it in your comment too... it's tough not to be biased against a company that provides sub-par service at best.
On a side note, I think Engadget needs to have a voting up/down system for all ARTICLES too. I would have voted this article up a couple times for sure.
Perhaps N900 missed that my previous reply was based on my personal opinion. Opinions rarely ever supported with facts, however since it is facts that you are looking for, try clicking on Chris Ziegler's name at the top of the article and read his previous articles. I don't feel like I am out of line by forming the "opinion" that Chris is receiving some sort of compensation for his anti-AT&T writing. Amusing though that Engadget shows AT&T advertising. Guess you can bite the hand that feeds you. I guess it pays to be a mindless imbecile, right N900?
Great indication of the state of things when the best argument for AT&T is "It doesn't suck EVERYWHERE" and "Verizon coverage isn't PERFECT"...
Guess what? AT&T 3G coverage SUCKS IN MOST PLACES because it doesn't exist. Verizon's 3G coverage is pretty good in the vast majority of places and at the very least is significantly better than AT&T.
Argue semantics all you want, but this means that Verizon's 3G networks is way better than AT&T's.
If you travel at all and want to use your smartphone, you would be remiss to use anything but Verizon or Sprint.
I've been on AT&T since 2001, and I don't think I've *ever* had a dropped call.
(This is in the Boston area.)
I love that I got ranked down for actually asking for some *gasp* data instead of all of your overhyped and undersupported nonsense... It honestly leads me to wonder whether I missed the memo that you're all in love with Verizon and the Droid now and not AT&T and the iPhone. I guess the *cool* bandwagon moves fast these days.
Regardless, that's why I chose engineering instead of journalism for a career path; one is based in loosely defined notions, the other requires a modicum of fact, logic, and empirical data. Lost a lot of faith in engadget and its readers today.
Thanks for backing me up @Ravi K
Maybe you missed the point where I using your comment as an example of stupid excuses of a counter argument against Chris. "you guys" != you, and quite frankly I couldn't care less whether it was opinion or not. Otherwise I wouldn't have snipped it in my comment in the first place. It was comprised of absolute stupidity, and your best excuse towards that is FURTHER stupidity. No more! I'm practically dying of laughter from your "opinions" xD!
thedman07: Saying AT&T doesn't suck everywhere wasn't an ENDORSEMENT, you dimwit. It was a response to people who think it DOES suck everywhere. You want it phrased differently? Fine, how about this: AT&T is just about god damn perfect in my area because I never get less than 4 bars and I always have 3G. ALWAYS. My calls never drop, and I always have fast mobile internet.
As far as traveling, I was just on the East Coast a couple weeks ago, and guess what? No problems there either. You still think I'm "remiss" in using AT&T, despite having near perfect service with it?
You can try to argue with this, but it's kind of hard to argue against facts.
" The tone of this article makes one believe that his experience is the singular experience with the AT&T network. It's not."
That is true. So far you, Jack, and to an extent, nerdtalker are the ONLY ones in this section who aren't posting random crap in an effort to counter Chris' editorial. That's my only beef here. That and "opinions".
I live near Two Bridges and I have somewhat of a subpar experience on my Nokia 5800. I don't have a problem with 201 kb down and 93 up, but it's a poor experience when using Maps, streaming content, and torrenting (SymTorrent). BUT AT&T like you guys say is not sucky all around. Areas where my family lives, Metuchen, Orange, are pretty fair, if not very fast. But in Warwick, RI. AT&T is the fastest IMO.
The point is that while AT&T has reason to sue, and Verizon is misleading some people. The very LEAST they could do is improve coverage speeds in some areas.
Not many people are saying that AT&T 3G sucks everywhere... but the FACT is that it is NONEXISTENT in a whole bunch of places where Sprint and Verizon have coverage.
We're not talking about individual experiences. We're talking about the experience of people across the nation. I'm not calling you stupid for being with AT&T, I really don't care.
If your iPhone works great for you, awesome. Good for you. If you traveled, you'd find yourself without 3G service in a bunch of places. Look at the maps... They may be blue as blue can be where you live... but there's a whole mess of white there that OTHER people are experiencing.
AT&T's 3G network sucks in many places where there is coverage by other carriers. AT&T chooses not to compete with these other carriers by improving their network. They choose to do it through litigation.
Droid does?
Try your At&T speeds down in the Raleigh/Durham NC area. I pulled down over 4Mbps down and 2Mbps up at 70mph on Rt. 85. Checked it like three times!
USBConnect Mecury.
z
You measured 4 MBps speed while driving at 70 mph?
I hope you were the passenger while you were doing that testing....
Yes, I was the passenger. Started watching some Hulu videos at 480p.
Need. More. Speed.
I want to be able to take my 15Mbps Fios with me anywhere!
Honesty, I wish that AT&T had that kind of coverage in Denver. I don't want to break my contract and go to Verizon but I feel like I'm paying for a service and not getting to use it. I moved from T-Mobile and the performance and reliability of AT&T's network only is just not commensurate with the cost. With T-Mobile, at least you're getting a deal.
Does the A in AT&T stand for Apple?
No, it stands for A$$.
Instead of suing they should invest in a more clever commercial. We all know that marketing hype is far more effective than facts.
SNAP!
I have been tracking a local outage in my area. You all may find this interesting...
http://carlhutzler.com/blog/2009/11/12/att-service-down-in-reston-va-for-a-week-and-counting/
Thanks for the info. My brother-in-law lives near there and keeps complaining about his craptacular AT&T service. Then again, his contract is up next week and he's moving to Droidsville, so it's no real issue there anyway.
Fantastic post Chris! Completely agree with everything.
The real problem with the Verizon ads are that they imply that outside of the at&t 3G area, you don't get any service at all. They are also including coverage partners in their map, including those in which the average user would have to pay roaming fees.
Also, I have found that in most rural situations, at&t (and their partners) EDGE speeds to be in excess of 200Kbps.
No, they do not imply that. You're certainly free to make that assumption, but that makes you one of the braindead idiots that AT&T is suing on behalf of.
The maps show 3G support, and 3G support only, and it is clearly labeled that way in every single ad using those maps.
Yeah, it clearly says the maps are 3G maps. If AT&T wants to make their own commercial showing their full-service maps, let them. Or make a commercial about how an AT&T customer can receive text messages while downloading a youtube video ... or reply to email while talking on the phone. AT&T has plenty of benefits to their service if they'd just advertise them, especially compared to Verizon's prices!
There's no deception on the part of Verizon, though.
No, they don't. If they did, they'd say "Wireless Coverage" next to the maps instead of "3G". But they don't. Might as well complain, as AppleInsider apparently did that it doesn't include spots where wifi is available, including inside people's houses and workplaces. That's coverage too, right? Or places where they can connect their phone to a computer that's wired up for network access? Wouldn't want to mislead customers into thinking they can't get data access at those places!
Listen, some people may not know what 3G is, they will associate an iphone 3G, and you see a map that shows 3G, most folks will assume it won't work where the is white spots not showing 3G, it is misleading, it doesn't matter if your brain knows what 3G is, it doesn't matter even what ANY of us think or know or assume, what matters is if the lawyers get 300 people, and the > % assume what AT&T is thinking they are assuming, then the ad is misleading. Can any fangirl (either att or Verizon) see beyond their own following this very simple logic? I mean, Verizon could also sue AT&T if they showed an Edge map, and showed Verizon's edge coverage if they both sold edge phones. They don't. And technically, they don't both sell 3G phones with the same technology either, the root of this problem is the loose definition of 3G. 3G is all Verizon has and technically some of their area should be labeled 2.5G not all 3G, but that's another chapter, and Verizon is slower where I live, I can barley get 100-200k no matter where I am or what time of the day on my droid phone, ATT I get 700-800k, t-mobile g1, I get 80-600k (yes, it varies that much for some reason)--- does that mean Verizon SUCKS MONKEY BALLS HA HA HA or AT&T IS FOR THE WIN? NO, it just means for my area that's what it is, and for me and a few folks I know who have the same experiences.
We can obvioulsy can agree that no network is going to be right for everyone its will depend on several factors, where you live and towers around you as well as the type of phone you have, but I think the problem with the ads, (don't get me wrong I enjoy when companies go after each other and definately find them funny whether or not I agree with what is being said) a large number of avererage consumers (This would not apply to most people on this site) look at maps and their head thinks wow AT&T has no coverage, when that is obviously not true. So yeah i'm sure they are pissed and wanna sue, it hurt their business and we all know its all about the $$ for most companies. For me, my phone personal phone (At&t) works great and my work phone (Verizon) not so great...so for me its an obvious choice. The whole cost argument about one charging more than the other and ripping consumers off...last time I checked...we as consumers still wielded the almighty power and choosing to go somewhere else.
Excellent editorial. Chris, that was a great read.
"in a year or two, no one's going to give a damn that you used to have an exclusive on the iPhone."
Doh! No one cares now!
Doh! That's the only reason they're still alive.
Except when you try to look something up on your phone, they insist on using their iPhone and you have to patiently wait while they tap-tap-taparoo it up on the 100kbps connection speeds of AT&T's 3dge network.
3dge, yes it was intentional- ponder it
Uhh what did he say?
I used to work for Verizon. I'm on T-mobile now.
Yes, the network is better. MUCH better. MUCH MUCH better. I will never, ever state otherwise.
But Verizon just isn't nice. Their customer service is awful and inconsistent, their phones, until the DROID, are locked down and designed to maximise consumer pain, and their service costs 25% more than anyone else.
Plus CDMA means I can't leave the US and have a phone.
So, when LTE and android phones are the norm, I'll be back. Until then, T-mobile.