AT&T defends its data network from Verizon ad attacks

[AppleInsider]

As Verizon has stepped up its efforts to portray AT&T's data network as sparse and largely unavailable, AT&T has published information that shows Verizon isn't telling the whole story.

Verizon began advertising its 3G coverage against AT&T's in a series of ads poking fun at Apple's "there's an app for that" iPhone commercials, presenting coverage maps of its own 3G CDMA/EVDO network in red against much more limited 3G service coverage maps for AT&T's 3G network presented in blue.

Verizon's 3G

The problem is that Verizon isn't actually comparing the two company's data networks; it restricts its comparison to "3G data" because outside of 3G, Verizon doesn't really have a data network; users revert to extremely slow CDMA 1xRTT service, which only provides dialup speed data access.

Verizon began deploying EVDO Rev A as its 3G service enhancement in 2003, and by mid 2007 announced that its entire data network had been migrated over to the faster 3G technology, allowing download speeds of 0.6 to 1.4 Mbit and slightly slower upload speeds.

However, Verizon still says on its website that for users "in Mobile Broadband markets that do not yet have EV-DO Rev. A, you can expect download speeds of 400 to 700 Kbps and upload speeds of 60- to 80 Kbps."

There is no distinguishing between these two levels of service (one being similar to EDGE, the other being roughly twice as fast) on Verizon's coverage maps.

Plans to upgrade beyond Rev A to EVDO Rev B or Ultra Mobile Broadband were put on hold when global carriers began to move away from Qualcomm's CDMA carrier technologies to 3GPP UMTS, the emerging global standard for mobile networks. Verizon now plans to begin deploying LTE, which represents the next generation of UMTS mobile networking, but is still years away from viable use. That means Verizon's existing 3G network is mature and set in place, with little potential for performance enhancement.

AT&T's data networks

During the time Verizon was selling its slow CDMA 1xRTT data earlier in the decade, AT&T was building out GPRS, the similarly slow, dialup speed data alternative associated with GSM networks globally. However, AT&T also began deploying EDGE, a "2.5G" service enhancement that supplies typical download speeds of around 0.4 Mbit, approaching the low end of Verizon's EVDO Rev A 3G.

In 2005, AT&T began rolling out its first true UMTS 3G service, which enabled data service of up to 3.6 Mbit, significantly faster than Verizon's EVDO. The company is now in the process of rolling out 7.4 Mbit enhanced UMTS data service in certain cities, including Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles and Miami. It plans to have the faster 7.2 3G service in 25 of its top 30 markets by the end of next year, and to reach 90% of its 3G network by the end of 2011. By then, AT&T says it will begin deploying the faster LTE as well.

This year however, the company reports having installed an additional 2,000 cell sites to extend or improve service coverage. This includes deploying new 850 MHz 3G service which existing phones can use, as well as augmenting its mobile network with the largest WiFi hotspot network in the US, with 20,000 sites. Apple has worked with AT&T to setup automatic, free login to AT&T's WiFi networks on the iPhone whenever users come within range. WiFi offers far faster network speeds than any type of 3G network, in the typical range of around 5 Mbps.

Verizon's 3G ruse

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 doesn't mention that the network data activities it presents in its advertisements don't require 3G service and will work with any data service. Nor does it call attention to the fact that AT&T's 3G network is already as much as twice as fast as its own, and is in the process of being upgraded to even faster service.

Verizon's own LTE upgrade plans won't kick in for at least another year or two and won't be available to existing phone users (as new LTE phones will be required to use it); modern phones like the iPhone 3GS can already use the faster 7.2 Mbit service AT&T is in the process of deploying.



The fine print in Verizon's ads notes that its "five times more" 3G maps and comparisons relate only to surface area in square miles, not to the percentage of coverage of actual population centers. AT&T says its entire data network reaches more than 296 million users, or 98% of the population, while its 3G service is available in 9,400 cities in 350 metropolitan areas in the US. Most users are more interested in getting data service where they live and work rather than knowing there is a certain number of square miles of land with Verizon's 3G service.

That has prompted AT&T to sue to stop Verizon's ads, while also publishing updates on its own network upgrades.

AT&T is also working to expand its trial of the 3G MicroCell, used to patch remaining service holes with users' own Internet access, from the original test markets in Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina. On October 5, the trial was expanded to include Atlanta, GA and Columbia, SC. Yesterday it added a pilot program in San Diego, CA. The company has still not yet committed to a date for its nationwide launch, however.

Verizon's ads targeting AT&T are the company's best bet in defending steep losses as its parade of iPhone-killers fail to attract attention. AppleInsider earlier reported that Apple is believed to be developing a "worldmode" iPhone that can work across both AT&T's UMTS and Verizon's EVDO networks.

Until that arrives next year, Verizon can only advertise that the iPhone on AT&T doesn't really have enough usable service coverage, despite the fact that iPhone users consume around half of the country's mobile data bandwidth. In the meantime, observers point out that its "there's a map for that" ads really only serve to advertise the iPhone App Store, a subject Verizon should probably just ignore.

[James Beatty]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

AppleInsider earlier reported that Apple is believed to be developing a "worldmode" iPhone that can work across both AT&T's UMTS and Verizon's EVDO networks.

If the iPhone does come to Verizon Wireless I pray Apple can keep Verizon Wireless from butchering it's software like they do with so many of their phones.

[ivan.rnn01]

"Du calme, du calme!"

Everything is already in the hands of AT&T's experts and lawyers. They know what they do.

EDGE is 3G technology, it's commonly recognized despite all popular inventions of 2.5G or 2,3333333...G.

The fact is phones display 3G indicator lacking the screen estate and people, being far from technical subjects, believe this is exact identifier of the best service they manage to get right now.
This is not correct classification and is not acceptable when it comes to sensitive matters like those maps and the squabble around.

The official coverage maps of both AT&T and VZW call it more precisely and properly: "3G/Broadband". It's exactly what should have been made clear to the audience of those ads.
VZW shows the map of AT&T's "3G/Broadband" coverage, and just "Enhanced services" (corresponding to EDGE) of themselves. This is indeed a bit playful comparison.

Formally, the message "3G coverage map" is willingly incorrect in the case of AT&T. They rightfully sue VZW over it. They have all chances to win.

P.S. VZW, get over it. See, I'm giving you the idea of an irreproachable ad. Take the heap of coverage maps of small no-name carriers and mvnos. Take AT&T's maps, if you like it so bad. Make them fade in and overlap the map of the States and one another. Do not name competitors. Then put your pretty dense red map on top of all that junk and say "We're with you everywhere to deliver the best service". Voila! Everyone's happy.

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

AT&T has published information that shows Verizon isn't telling the whole story.

I doubt that Verizon would even claim that it's telling the whole story. It's called marketing, folks. And really isn't any different than when Apple claimed "twice as fast" for the iPhone 3G. There were far more footnotes on those ads than there are on Verizon's. There are people suing Apple for those claims, and that barely got a mention on AI and those people were scoffed at on these message boards as being uninformed buyers who should have done their research before making their purchase.

Why is this different? Why is AI writing an entire article defending poor ATT as a victim? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. No, the ads don't tell the "whole story", but what ad does? You talk about your strengths and the competition's weaknesses. And it work's both ways. You can't say it's the iPhone 3G customer's fault for not understanding what Apple's "twice as fast" claims mean in the real world and then turn around and not expect the same diligence on the part of a the customer when it comes to Verizon's ads.

[str1f3]

I'll leave this ad war garbage up to the carriers. What I do care about is the problems that AT&T has in New York. While AT&T may be deploying the 7.2 3G virtually everywhere, I don't believe that New York isn't one of them. Seriously AT&T, this is the #1 market in the country. You should be prioritizing your attention here. The city should be blanketed in coverage considering that a significant portion of iPhones are sold here and the iPhone is keeping you from losing subscribers.

[RichL]

This is an incredibly misleading article, with many factual errors (EDGE is 2.5G? Really?) and it completely misses the point. The problem with AT&T's network isn't the technology behind it, the problem is its capacity. AT&T simply doesn't have the capacity for all of these new data users.

One of the graphs shows a typical data rate on AT&T 3G UMTS network of roughly 1Mbps (I assume the graph is in Mbps, there's no scale). That's a fantasy figure for most US city centres due to a lack of capacity.

[Mazda 3s]

Originally Posted by Wiggin

I doubt that Verizon would even claim that it's telling the whole story. It's called marketing, folks. And really isn't any different than when Apple claimed "twice as fast" for the iPhone 3G. There were far more footnotes on those ads than there are on Verizon's. There are people suing Apple for those claims, and that barely got a mention on AI and those people were scoffed at on these message boards as being uninformed buyers who should have done their research before making their purchase.

Why is this different? Why is AI writing an entire article defending poor ATT as a victim? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. No, the ads don't tell the "whole story", but what ad does? You talk about your strengths and the competition's weaknesses. And it work's both ways. You can't say it's the iPhone 3G customer's fault for not understanding what Apple's "twice as fast" claims mean in the real world and then turn around and not expect the same diligence on the part of a the customer when it comes to Verizon's ads.

You hit the nail on the head. Why does AT&T even need defending on APPLEinsider?

[Jon T]

Funny to think that all of this attention to the issue is because of one single phone.

Also funny is that with all the years of Blackberry and WinMobile this issue was irrelevant!

It's purely theoretical I know, but I wonder if the Verizon network would collapse with the weight of iPhones that AT&T has to accommodate.

[imike12706]

I routinely get 2+ MB/s second down and 800+ KB/s up on vzw in northern Indiana.

[pmz]

Originally Posted by James Beatty

If the iPhone does come to Verizon Wireless I pray Apple can keep Verizon Wireless from butchering it's software like they do with so many of their phones.

One of a thousand Verizon-related issues that would arise, that most tweedle-dorks around here have no concept of.

[sgntscrawn]

Originally Posted by Wiggin

I doubt that Verizon would even claim that it's telling the whole story. It's called marketing, folks. And really isn't any different than when Apple claimed "twice as fast" for the iPhone 3G. There were far more footnotes on those ads than there are on Verizon's. There are people suing Apple for those claims, and that barely got a mention on AI and those people were scoffed at on these message boards as being uninformed buyers who should have done their research before making their purchase.

Why is this different? Why is AI writing an entire article defending poor ATT as a victim? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. No, the ads don't tell the "whole story", but what ad does? You talk about your strengths and the competition's weaknesses. And it work's both ways. You can't say it's the iPhone 3G customer's fault for not understanding what Apple's "twice as fast" claims mean in the real world and then turn around and not expect the same diligence on the part of a the customer when it comes to Verizon's ads.

I guess the difference is that AT&T is treating this as a serious threat and is campaigning against it, whereas all Apple did was defend itself in court and otherwise gave those customers a whole lot of no notice. I guess each method can work in its own way.

[pmz]

Originally Posted by Wiggin

I doubt that Verizon would even claim that it's telling the whole story. It's called marketing, folks. And really isn't any different than when Apple claimed "twice as fast" for the iPhone 3G. There were far more footnotes on those ads than there are on Verizon's. There are people suing Apple for those claims, and that barely got a mention on AI and those people were scoffed at on these message boards as being uninformed buyers who should have done their research before making their purchase.

Why is this different? Why is AI writing an entire article defending poor ATT as a victim? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. No, the ads don't tell the "whole story", but what ad does? You talk about your strengths and the competition's weaknesses. And it work's both ways. You can't say it's the iPhone 3G customer's fault for not understanding what Apple's "twice as fast" claims mean in the real world and then turn around and not expect the same diligence on the part of a the customer when it comes to Verizon's ads.

Thank you. The lack of comprehension around here and the entire tech world when it comes to ADVERTISING is absolutely ridiculous. That, and half the people who create user names on forums/post on said forums, are around the age of the 14, so the effects of advertising can be understood.

Why AI is such a hapless victim of marketing, I can't begin to explain....

[Turley Muller]

Originally Posted by RichL

This is an incredibly misleading article, with many factual errors (EDGE is 2.5G? Really?) and it completely misses the point. The problem with AT&T's network isn't the technology behind it, the problem is its capacity. AT&T simply doesn't have the capacity for all of these new data users.

One of the graphs shows a typical data rate on AT&T 3G UMTS network of roughly 1Mbps (I assume the graph is in Mbps, there's no scale). That's a fantasy figure for most US city centres due to a lack of capacity.

Really? Fantasy figure ? Have you used /tested iPhone in multiple U.S cities? Or, is that just what you have been hearing? I did a lot traveling past several months, and I haven't experienced any issues other than NYC, where my iPhone would sometimes drop to EDGE to get a signal in middle of buildings, and still then weak or barely a signal. When it catches a glimpse of the 3G signal it will turn 3G back on, only to revert back to EDGE shortly after, It's the switching back in forth that will drop/miss calls.

I ran a good number tests for all the places I was in, and speeds were pretty good. Instances where speeds were low, many were related to poor latency most likely from the surrounding obstructions, not lack of capacity. Nearly all AT&T 3G runs on a high frequency spectrum, which is not good at penetrating buildings and ground obstructions. AT&T is moving over to the low frequency spectrum, supposedly it's nearly complete.

I seldom saw poor network performance due to capacity issues in the cities I was in. When & where it was slow, it was slow morning, night, and day... where amount of traffic would vary.

I live in Memphis, and surprisingly my average 3G speeds around my house downtown keep getting better. I was seeing upper end speeds of 700kb last fall, 1.3Mbs this winter, 1,7Mbs this spring, and 2.2Mbs now. I hadn't had a dropped call since last summer, when on occasion call would be dropped driving in rush hour traffic. In my area, it seems it's improved even with considerable increase in network consumption. But for the handful of spots that are poor, are still bad, and probably will remain that way. And many of those that switched to AT&T live in those bad spots. It's likely that the reason they weren't on AT&T, is because they had been with another carrier for years which was probably the legacy pioneer cell provider in that area.

[DanielSW]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

. . . Verizon's ads targeting AT&T are the company's best bet in defending steep losses as its parade of iPhone-killers fail to attract attention. . .

This is the point that all you "tweedle-dorks" (thanks, pmz, for this lovely, new-to-me, term) are missing with your flame-fanning posts.

There are some facts in this article which a dwindling number of us here can appreciate. But all these damn acronyms can get pretty confusing.

The facts that I care anything about are what I observe for myself:

1. I see a LOT of iPhones in use out there on a daily basis which I don't even look for.
2. I've been a happy AT&T customer for nearly TWO DECADES.
3. My wireless calls connect and don't get dropped far more often than not.
4. I've seen ONE G1 phone and NO Palm Pre's so far.
5. Apple chose AT&T. That's testimony in itself.
6. I don't drink coffee, but Starbucks chose AT&T. More testimony.
7. I've heard of AT&T hot spots. I haven't heard of Verizon hotspots.

[heffeque]

It's interesting to see how AT&T has very limited 3.6 Mbps coverage, and a 7.2 Mbps coverage limited to only a couple of cities while in Europe it's EDGE for almost 98% of the population, 7.2 Mbps coverage por almost all the small cities (20.000 inhabitants and up) and 21 Mbps (HSPA+) for selected cities.
Verizon on the other hand barely has EDGE speeds and announces them as 3G speeds. Quite lame IMHO.

It's like the US is a year or two behind Europe and Asia, cellphone-wise that is.

[Quadra 610]

Carrier wars?

LOL. They should know by now that the hardware makes your carrier. AT&T is proof. You can have a lousy carrier, and that will present some natural limitations, but if you've got the device(s) everyone wants, you'll do fine. Obviously, there's a limit to what people will put up with, but as we've seen, they're willing to put up with a lot.

[genevish]

Originally Posted by pmz

Thank you. The lack of comprehension around here and the entire tech world when it comes to ADVERTISING is absolutely ridiculous. That, and half the people who create user names on forums/post on said forums, are around the age of the 14, so the effects of advertising can be understood.

Why AI is such a hapless victim of marketing, I can't begin to explain....

Agreed. However, there has been a few trends lately that is prompting this kind of response. For one, the prevalence of the Internet has made people more aware of the deception of advertising, whereas in the past people were more likely to believe the claims of advertising. And two, the news media, once relied on to provide unbiased reporting, has increasingly been reporting based on sensationalism to drive ad revenue.

The end result is that people are aware of deception around them and are seeking/demanding some source of unbiased information.

[surebet07]

Verizon is in trouble. They have no plan to expand their current 3G network...and 4G is many years away. Their 3G is capped at 1.4MB.....while AT&T is already at 3MB and going to 7MB then 14MB.

I predict we will see the DROID Users start complaining about their service real soon.

AT&T needs to create some nifty commercials to relay this to the public.

[skaeight]

I have an iPhone and AT&T, but I really have to call BS on this article. I live in an area that doesn't yet have 3G so I know first hand what EDGE is like. Also up until August when I switched to AT&T for the iPhone I had Verizon with a Blackberry 8330 which is EVDO rev.0. I can assure you that my blackberry on verizon (evdo rev.0) was light years faster than my iPhone is on EDGE.

I think that things were completely jumbled up when the author went to write this article. He says that EDGE gets .4 Mbps which is 400 Kbps, which is equal to the lower end slower EVDO (which is rev. 0). This comparison is completely bogus. 400 Kbps is the theoretical upper end on EDGE when using 4 timeslots. The actual capacity of EDGE even with 4 timeslots is 236.8 kbit/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhance...ion_techniques

Ok even if we take the 236.8 Kbps figure, that does approach some slower EVDO speeds. The problem with that is that areas that do not yet have 3G service were not big enough to have 4 timeslots allocated for EDGE, so there is no way to reach those speeds for people who are still stuck on the 2.5G EDGE network (as far as I know this type of deployment was only installed in large cities because of the original 2G iPhone). I just did a bandwidth test from my iPhone and i got about 110 Kbps down, which is actually pretty good. I have never seen it go above 120 Kbps.

In my experience I typically saw between 300-700 Kbps on EVDO.

You can't compare a theoretical maximum (that isn't even widely deployed) to low end typical results. I see this type of analysis quite often in the tech industry and it really bugs me. I do agree that Verizon's ads were misleading, mainly because they do mislead you to think that there is no data service in the white areas on AT&T's map, which I can assure you from personal experience is not true (and EDGE with full bars works well enough when I need to pull up some information). However, the type of analysis that was used in this article is just as disingenuous as the Verzion commercial was.

[clexman]

Originally Posted by imike12706

I routinely get 2+ MB/s second down and 800+ KB/s up on vzw in northern Indiana.

That's impressive considering that no US carrier offers those speeds. I think you must mean Mb & Kb & not MB & KB.

[farlander]

On multiple occasions, when I'm driving from New York to Chicago or back, Verizon gives solid 3G coverage pretty much everywhere I go - even in the areas of Pennsylvania, where AT&T has no coverage at all. I'm able to stream music at 256kbps during the entire trip, while on AT&T I only have 3G coverage for less than 1 hour out of 13 hour trip.

It's a shame I have to use Verizon's MiFi 2200 to get any sort of meaningful 3G coverage on my iPhone

AT&T's UMTS network might _in theory_ offer higher speeds, but in reality it's a far cry from Verizon's EvDO: I don't get 3G service most of the time, and even when I do get it, it's still slower than Verizon's EvDO. And also, the latency is 2-3 times worse on AT&T's network, even if I manage to get a decent speed: about 200-300ms, versus Verizon's 80-100ms.

If iPhone was available on Verizon's network - I'd switch in no time.

P.S. Right now in New Jersey I'm getting a little bit over 2 megabit download speed via Verizon's MiFi 2200, and barely a bar on my iPhone. While iPhone does show the "3G" badge, there's basically no data coming through - I had to turn its wifi on, so it can connect to MiFi 2200. And I'm only about 8 miles from Manhattan, living in a rather highly populated and open area.

[clexman]

Originally Posted by surebet07

Verizon is in trouble. They have no plan to expand their current 3G network...and 4G is many years away. Their 3G is capped at 1.4MB.....while AT&T is already at 3MB and going to 7MB then 14MB.

I predict we will see the DROID Users start complaining about their service real soon.

AT&T needs to create some nifty commercials to relay this to the public.

While AT&T has a higher top speed, study after study shows that its top speed is rarely reached and on average Verizon kills AT&T for both voice and data coverage.

Also, don't confuse MB & Mb. 1MB = 8 Mb.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by James Beatty

If the iPhone does come to Verizon Wireless I pray Apple can keep Verizon Wireless from butchering it's software like they do with so many of their phones.

Verizon hasn't touched the Droid phone in any way and they won't touch the iPhone once they get it.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Carrier wars?
LOL. They should know by now that the hardware makes your carrier. AT&T is proof. You can have a lousy carrier, and that will present some natural limitations, but if you've got the device(s) everyone wants, you'll do fine. Obviously, there's a limit to what people will put up with, but as we've seen, they're willing to put up with a lot.

I have a Droid coming and will stay with it until next year when Verizon gets the iPhone. I thought about switching to AT&T but why switch and then have to get another iPhone with LTE and then switch back to Verizon. Makes more sense to just stay put with a Droid and get the iPhone later.

Apple know that there is a huge pent up demand for iPhones on the non GSM carriers that they don't want to loose. Phones like the Droid will fill that gap if Apple does not act quickly. This is why I'm fairly sure that Apple will do a true world phone for the next release.

Please don't try and tell me that Apple will never take the time to engineer a CDMA phone. Now that Qualcomm has a world chip set that does EVERYTHING including LTE Apple can do CDMA with little engineering effort.

[fulldecent]

Sorry for the technical question...

Can anyone comment on the actual bottleneck that AT&T is technically experiencing?

Is it:
* The number of total subscribers connected to a tower simultaneously, on a call or not?
* The number of active subscribers per tower, since the connection becomes active on data access which is frequent?
* RF spectrum in large cities?
* The total bandwidth of data per call?
* The total bandwidth of data across the mobile tower backhaul?
* ECHELON?

[Wayfarer]

Just give me a Verizon iPhone and I won't complain.

[dm3]

Complete BS on the part of AI. Really calls into question AI's credibility and motivation. Clearly an article paid for by AT&T.

EDGE is no where near as fast as EVDO. Theoretical whatever. In real life EDGE gets 100-150kbps. EVDO even its slowest form gets 400kbit-1mbit.

Verizon is very fair in showing its 3G coverage is 5x ATT.

AT&T hasn't doing anything noticeable to improve 3G coverage. And even its edge coverage is poor in many places.

Its embarrassing that AT&T can claim HSDPA 7.2mbit rollout when only going to a few cities when almost all their network is stuck at glacially slow EDGE.

I'm glad that Verizon is lighting a fire under AT&T. AT&T should stop denying there's a problem and FIX IT! They've had the iPhone for almost 3 years. They knew this was coming. Compare the 3G coverage map on AT&T to two years ago. There's almost no different. AT&T is simply not improving their network fast enough. And they ignore customers who complain about poor reception.

Verizon... can you hear me now... really has done a good job of filling in any dead spots and covering the country coast to coast.

[skaeight]

Originally Posted by dm3

Complete BS on the part of AI. Really calls into question AI's credibility and motivation. Clearly an article paid for by AT&T.

EDGE is no where near as fast as EVDO. Theoretical whatever. In real life EDGE gets 100-150kbps. EVDO even its slowest form gets 400kbit-1mbit.

Verizon is very fair in showing its 3G coverage is 5x ATT.

AT&T hasn't doing anything noticeable to improve 3G coverage. And even its edge coverage is poor in many places.

Its embarrassing that AT&T can claim HSDPA 7.2mbit rollout when only going to a few cities when almost all their network is stuck at glacially slow EDGE.

I'm glad that Verizon is lighting a fire under AT&T. AT&T should stop denying there's a problem and FIX IT! They've had the iPhone for almost 3 years. They knew this was coming. Compare the 3G coverage map on AT&T to two years ago. There's almost no different. AT&T is simply not improving their network fast enough. And they ignore customers who complain about poor reception.

Verizon... can you hear me now... really has done a good job of filling in any dead spots and covering the country coast to coast.

See my post above.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

You hit the nail on the head. Why does AT&T even need defending on APPLEinsider?

That's a puzzling question, considering that ATT is the only network that carries the APPLE iPhone. Surely, anything that can affect the sole network for this product for better or worse is legitimate AI news? (At least, it is for me). No different from AI covering Intel or Microsoft over, say, something that affects a Mac-related Intel chip or Office for Mac.

You're making too big a deal of it.

[NOFEER]

tell me if verizon had the iphone do you think they could handle the unprecedented data volume?
nobody in their wildest dreams (even SJ) thought this would explode like it did, even the great google had to check their data after a 50 times increase in mobile traffic
we have witnessed a huge paradigm shift iphone is riding this wave well,
actually verizon couldn't handle to load even if only a few % were on their networks
competition will force some balance, see verizon has crippled its phones in the past to avoid the network strain

[anantksundaram]

I think that ATT needs to take a deep breath, hunker down, tune out the noise, and go about the business of investing in improving the quality and coverage of their network, and talk about that. Period.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

You hit the nail on the head. Why does AT&T even need defending on APPLEinsider?

So true.

[DKWalsh4]

Originally Posted by pmz

Thank you. The lack of comprehension around here and the entire tech world when it comes to ADVERTISING is absolutely ridiculous. That, and half the people who create user names on forums/post on said forums, are around the age of the 14, so the effects of advertising can be understood.

Why AI is such a hapless victim of marketing, I can't begin to explain....

You take yourself and this forum way too seriously....

[surebet07]

Originally Posted by clexman

While AT&T has a higher top speed, study after study shows that its top speed is rarely reached and on average Verizon kills AT&T for both voice and data coverage.

Also, don't confuse MB & Mb. 1MB = 8 Mb.

Thanks for the clarification.

OK...so even if top speed is rarely reached, Verizon's top speed is capped at 1.4Mb....while in theory, if you have a good signal, AT&T's is at 3.2Mb....going to 7.2Mb and then 14Mb. They just need more towers...which is what they are installing.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally Posted by DanielSW

5. Apple chose AT&T. That's testimony in itself.
6. I don't drink coffee, but Starbucks chose AT&T. More testimony.
7. I've heard of AT&T hot spots. I haven't heard of Verizon hotspots.

Um, Apple went to Verizon first but Verizon didn't want to play their game.

What you don't know is that Apple is creating that CDMA universal phone for next year and is pretty much begging Verizon to take it.

The iPhone can only go so far as an AT&T exclusive and AT&T is going to be even further behind the times next year when Verizon begins rolling out 4G.

AT&T has delayed their 4G rollout to 2011 or later. Verizon has already tested 4G and plans to roll it out simultaneously in about 30 or more markets next year. All those markets will be available on rollout day and their will be Android phones ready and able to handle 4G.

And then Verizon will be able to hammer AT&T for its lack of 4G coverage which they will slowly begin rolling out market by market in 2011 when Verizon will have expanded its coverage even further.

The truth is that Verizon has a much better infrastructure and backbone than AT&T and any other carrier. And that quick 4G rollout is whythey haven't further expanded 3G as AT&T has slowly been doing.

When 4G hits Verizon will be able to offer the best global plans due to Vodafone being a major stake holder in Verizon Wireless.

As for iPhone users on AT&T's network, I know several and all complain about how slow the network is and how the iPhones don't work half the time, or so it seems.

If AT&T were so wonderful then why do they even make a CDMA phone? It also doesn't make sense with the 4G rollout unless Apple is intentionally crippling the iPhone to make sure their AT&T version of the phone doesn't get hammered.

Because if Verizon offered a 4G iPhone next year then all the Apple fanboys would ditch AT&T at light speed and head straight to VZW if AT&T was stuck with 2.5G mostly with a bit of 3G thrown in.

But Verizon will have a 4G Droid next year with no slider keyboard, just the touchscreen. They will have that and a couple of other 4G phones ready to go as they put LTE on top of their CDMA network.

And, for those that want to know, Apple has twice tried to get VZW to take the iPhone in the past. VZW was the first company they asked to carry the iPhone exclusively but Verizon had no interest in Apple's demands. Then they were asked to be the second carrier before the original AT&T exclusivity deal was extended but Apple had the same demands.

What's going to happen is either Apple will be forced to dump its demands or they'll have to face having their phone on a terribly backwards network next year compared to Verizon's LTE network that should be in over 50 markets by the end of 2010 when AT&T begins merely field testing 4G.

By next year the iPhone will be left in the dust unless Apple undermines AT&T and releases a 4G phone for VZW. That actually could be the reason for the CDMA chip - to support the larger VZW network that has the best overall coverage in the country. But if Verizon gets a 4G iPhone (and they might try for their own exclusivity deal on the 4G version) then I expect the guy who wrote this article to suddenly sing Verizon's praises and talk about how bad AT&T was.

[johnmcboston]

OMG. I wish these two companies would stop whining and just get 4G up and running.

[ghostface147]

Perfectly satisfied user here in Houston.

[DJRumpy]

Originally Posted by clexman

While AT&T has a higher top speed, study after study shows that its top speed is rarely reached and on average Verizon kills AT&T for both voice and data coverage.

Also, don't confuse MB & Mb. 1MB = 8 Mb.

Actually, to be fair, the studies I've seen show that coverage is a bit more spotty on AT&T, but it's faster on average than Verizon.

If you live in or near a city, chances are you're better served by AT&T with a smartphone. If your out in the boonies, you're probably better served with Verizon.

[Zoolook]

Sorry, I'm confused... are we saying: Hey, yeah, AT&T is totally awful, but guess what, Verizon isn't actually much better. Or are we saying Actually, AT&T rocks?

I am NYC based and NYC is not representative of the rest of the country of course, but every New Yorker knows that Verizon basically craps all over every other carrier in the city, reliability wise, speed wise and coverage wide. I don't know anyone on Verizon who gets dropped calls, or waits 30 mins for a text message (unless it's from an iPhone) or can't get their email because the 'full bar' signal actually isn't transmitting any data.

Anyone living outside of NY (or San Fransisco from what I can gather) simply cannot understand how piss-poor AT&T's service is here... it's like being back in 1996 - calls won't connect, when they do they're dropped, I can barely read a 3 line email on my .me account without getting a massive lag... uploading a photo to Facebook... forget it!

Arguing the toss over coverage in Nevada (with all due respect) is nonsense, and just another anecdotal comment, I ran speedtest against a friend who just got a Droid phone in Park Slope Brooklyn (basically Affluent-Ville) - I got 0.35 mbit/sec and he got 2.1 mbit/sec (download), I got 0.10 upload and he got 0.7

Please AI, don't defend AT&T, they need their backsides kicking.

[DJRumpy]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Sorry, I'm confused... are we saying: Hey, yeah, AT&T is totally awful, but guess what, Verizon isn't actually much better. Or are we saying Actually, AT&T rocks?

I am NYC based and NYC is not representative of the rest of the country of course, but every New Yorker knows that Verizon basically craps all over every other carrier in the city, reliability wise, speed wise and coverage wide. I don't know anyone on Verizon who gets dropped calls, or waits 30 mins for a text message (unless it's from an iPhone) or can't get their email because the 'full bar' signal actually isn't transmitting any data.

Anyone living outside of NY (or San Fransisco from what I can gather) simply cannot understand how piss-poor AT&T's service is here... it's like being back in 1996 - calls won't connect, when they do they're dropped, I can barely read a 3 line email on my .me account without getting a massive lag... uploading a photo to Facebook... forget it!

Arguing the toss over coverage in Nevada (with all due respect) is nonsense, and just another anecdotal comment, I ran speedtest against a friend who just got a Droid phone in Park Slope Brooklyn (basically Affluent-Ville) - I got 0.35 mbit/sec and he got 2.1 mbit/sec (download), I got 0.10 upload and he got 0.7

Please AI, don't defend AT&T, they need their backsides kicking.

I don't think anyone has said AT&T rocks. That would be hard to say about any cell company. Other than SF and New York troublespots, I think the average user doesn't notice any issues. Their not great, but their not as crappy as being painted either, unless you happen to live near those dead zones anyway

[scotty321]

AT&T phones work outside the country. Verizon's phones don't. Enough said.

I just traveled through Europe with my iPhone, and had blazing fast Internet speeds everywhere I went, along with perfect call quality.