AT&T defends its data network from Verizon ad attacks - Page 3

i work in midtown manhattan and NYC is just fine almost all the time. even a few blocks from times square i can stream pandora all day with minimal problems. the worst problem i have is at street level when going inside a building

I have a link for that too, and I think this site is much more reliable.

http://www.qualcomm.com/news/release...m_to_Ship.html

A press release from Qualcomm that gives no indication of how practical this chip is for phones. It will take some time for LTE chips to be as small and energy efficient as current 3G chips. These things won't happen instantly.

Well see the tables turn in 5 years. Right now CDMA-based networks have the advantage of better voice algorithms while using less power. When LTE becomes common for these networks HSPA will have the advantage on power consumption while potentially matching or exceeding the speed.

They wouldn't have issued a press release if it didn't have any practicality. In 2010 I'm sure you'll see phones with CDMA and LTE. LTE will first be for data only while CDMA handles voice. Eventually LTE will handle both. No it doesn't say anything about the iPhone but you doubted there being combo chipsets. We all know that Apple is very tight lipped, we're not gonna hear anything but rumors surrounding any new iPhone especially since the 3GS is only a few months old.

I don't understand how Verizon is over-advertising. Even this article does not take issue with Verizon's 3G coverage map.

It just complains that Verizon does not show AT&T's "slower but functional" EDGE 2.5G coverage (and Wifi hotspots) in its 3G comparison maps. If that's the case, let's throw in AT&T dial-up lines and make the whole AT&T map solid blue.

I have seen the ads many times, and it seems very clear to me that Verizon is comparing 3G coverage only. I never got the impression that Verizon was implying that AT&T has NO data coverage in their non-3G areas.

I would agree that the whole "3G" talk is somewhat misleading because they are different technologies and real-world speeds are totally theoretical anyway. But I do think it's hypocritical for AT&T to play the 3G claim game and then criticize Verizon for playing it too.

Verizon has started an aggressive ad campaign against Apple and AT&T (yes both....if they did not want to include Apple, then why plagiarize their "Ap for that" and include the iPhone on their commercials?).

Verizon probably realizes that it will take years before 4G is rolled out enough to fully support the next gen iPhone. By that time, all the major carriers will have 4G as well...and all of them will sell the iPhone. Wireless Service will, once again, become a commodity where the lowest price will be the largest factor to winning new customers.

So, in order to prevent and minimize the mass exodus to AT&T or T-Mobile (wouldn't they be next?), they have aligned themselves with Google/Motorola and have begun their marketing campaigns against Apple/AT&T. This should tell us what is really going on inside of Verizon.

If I was Verizon, I would have fired the person(s) responsible for rejecting the iPhone (when it was offered) and I would continuously spread rumors and false hope of an upcoming Verizon iPhone to prevent any more defections. Maybe the latter has already happened.

Why would you fire them? I think they made a wise choice. They were not ready to say yes to a device sight unseen and have absolutely no control over. They are still the number one carrier in the U.S. without it. VZW is starting the inevitable war between the carriers. We are nearing a saturation point of people purchasing cell phones. How much longer can these companies boast a million plus subs every quarter, soon subs are gonna have to be gained at the expense of other carriers so why not attack the next big dog which is AT&T. VZW is also trying to stop the defections to AT&T for the iPhone.

Just like real estate, it's all about location, location, location. Where I live and work and play (Los Angeles and surrounding counties), AT&T works just fine with acceptable voice quality and really fast 3G data. AT&T locally works as well as my friends on Verizon currently, and better than I remember Verizon working on my Palm Treo I had before switching to the iPhone. BOTH drop calls. BOTH have dead zones.


Anyone living outside of NYC or SF just doesn't care what the coverage is in those cities unless they happen to go there on more than the rare occasion. Really, do you care what coverage is like in the suburbs of Los Angeles, or Dallas, or anywhere else not on your normal beaten path?

I empathize with anyone who has bad service with where ever they live or work, but to condemn a national company as terrible because some of their service areas are poor reeks of self-centered whining. AT&T works great the places I go, no reason to leave.

If the pain of being on AT&T outweighs the joys of having an iPhone, then switch. Problem solved. If enough people leave AT&T and tell them it's because the service sucks, they'll have to react to that and fix the problem.

Also, seems like many of the tech talking heads from the Bay Area (San Francisco) who were moaning about AT&T coverage "in the city", as they call SF, have stopped complaining since AT&T rolled out its new 850Mhz towers recently. AT&T seems to be responding to the complaints.

A seldom discussed, but significant in my opinion, disadvantage of the CDMA Rev A network in use by Verizon is the inability of the cellular device to access both voice and data simultaneously. AT&T's HSDPA network does not have that limitation.

Your mileage may vary on this, but I find it very useful to be able to check something on Safari or another app (Yelp, MovieFone, etc) while in a voice call with someone. I've also had occasion to send a picture by email or MMS to someone I'm on the phone with to get their opinion of a considered purchase in real time.

Maybe not a deal breaker for most, but something to consider before blindly chatting Verizon's network is "better" than AT&T's. "Better" is at best a subjective term, even if you have hard data on some aspects of the comparison, when user experience is part of the equation.

So, if I am using a GPS App in my car, where I am constantly getting map info via 3G, I won't get an inbound phone call?

OUCH!

Wow, this article seems to be lifted verbatim from a ATT press release.
As some people have commented already the "theoretical" speed of the ATT network is completely irrelevant if they do not have enough capacity to handle the traffic.

I live in NYC (10021) in the morning I can get speed on my iPhone around 300 kbps, the other day 11/4 I had an all time low of 47 (yes four-seven) kbps at 5:53 PM, with 3G and 5 bars.

In the middle of the night I get around 800-900 kbps.

Downtown NYC is quite different (zip 10003) there I got speed as fast as 1460 kbps.

There is no question that the ATT network is completely, utterly overwhelmed. Verzion's is not simply because they have very few good smartphone for browsing etc.

As soon as they have 4G and the iPhone they will be overwhelmed as well.

Yeah you will get the inbound call interrupting the data, but since some of the data is already cached it will only affect the GPS App if you're on the phone for an extended period of time.

I'm sure AT&T has known for a decade or more how much they suck in NYC. When I first got with them in 1998 it was horrible. If you weren't standing outside in the middle of the street you couldn't make a call. Today it sucks for different reasons, but the story is still the same.

It's not a market like anywhere else. The tall buildings and heavy building materials make it much more difficult and require many more towers to adequately cover the same area compared to a regular town. Of course the population density should make it affordable for the carriers to provide more towers per square mile, but I'm not an expert, and I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that.

The other thing is that CDMA, because of the frequency it uses, naturally penetrates buildings better than GSM, so if there's a Verizon tower and an AT&T tower side-by-side, you are more likely to get Verizon in your basement but not AT&T.

I think Verizon knows they have the advantage and has made extra effort to have great coverage in NYC. Everyone in NYC knows it. If they're with a different carrier, then it's because of cost, or the need for GSM for travel outside the US, or for the iPhone, or because their cousin works for T-mobile. No one is under the impression that their carrier's service is as good as Verizon's.

I'm sure AT&T is working on it. I feel like their service is about the same as it was before the iPhone, which must mean they've been working on it a lot, if you factor in all the extra traffic. I wish it would go faster, though. Mostly I just want them to build out the network to the point where they can offer tethering.

Verizon is comparing their 3G+2.75G vs AT&T's 3.5G.
Verizon should compare their 3G+2.75G vs AT&T's 3.5G+2.75G.

THAT'S what's unfair.

I don't know how to dumb it down anymore.

Verizon is saying their 3G coverage area is larger than ATT's coverage area. And they are using ATT's very own definition of what their 3G coverage area is. So their ads are 100% accurate. And yet people are saying they are misleading.

Just like Verizon neglects to point out that you'll have non-3G data services outside of ATT's 3G coverage area, Apple neglected to point out that if you are on an Edge network you won't get the "twice as fast" data rate. And their ads clearly implied the "twice as fast" applied to your data connection...thus leading to upset comsumers who filed lawsuits. My original point was that everyone dismissed as morons the people filing lawsuits over the twice as fast claim (saying they should have done their research to understand the coverage areas and limitations, etc). And yet then try to argue that ATT's lawsuit somehow has more merit. It's a fairly obvious double-standard. Doesn't the consumer still have the responsibility to understand the choices they are making?

In both cases, they are promoting the facts that make their product/service better (greater 3G coverage or twice as fast) while conveniently leaving out facts that make them look less attractive (ATTs large non-3G coverage area or the fact that you'll only get twice as fast in certain areas of the country). I'm all for stricter standards in advertising, but let's be objective about it and not pick sides just because it's the side our favorite fruit-logo'd company is on.

Edit: And if I recall correctly, Apple has had a few ads deemed misleading by the British oversight group (forget their name) and they were forced to stop airing and printing them. They were the exact same ads they used in the US without anyone here questioning them.

No, you'l get the call, but you won't get any new data updates as long as the phone is still in voice mode.


Exactly. Voice takes priority over data.

With a GPS app, this is only true if the Maps are being updated from Googles servers. If you have a GPS app with localized maps the GPS chip should still function, and because it can run in the background while using the phone, unlike TomToms app on the iPhone, you can actually use it while on a call. Pros and cons, but Ill take WCDMA any day over EVDO.

I kinda feel like if AT&T offered insurance on the iphone, it would bring their reputation up tremendously. If someone steals an iphone, AT&T doesn't do anything do they? They charge the victim full price for a replacement, and allow the thief to start a new account to use the stolen iphone.

Yeah, it's actually kind of annoying when someone calls me with Sprint Nav running. There's ways to auto ignore incoming calls but not seamlessly.

Little annoyances like these are a small price to pay for a great phone with a practical service plan.

I did not say "map updates", I said "data updates", data updates would be things such as live traffic (now offered by a couple of the apps), or anything else like current weather or gas prices etc. (Some mapping apps don't have localized map data or cache a lot of map data, isn't that a complaint we hear about Google Maps from time to time? No map displayed, despite the blue dot, if you're out of network service areas...)

But of course this is only an issue to the extent that the app you use doesn't cache the data you need within the duration of the phone call. That's why GPS was not included in my original list of reasons why I find this to be a downside to Verizon's network that the "Verizon-is-better" crowd tends to overlook when bashing AT&T's network.

Gotcha.

I'm sure that Goldman Saks and Citi got their coverage before anyone else! http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...112_606442.htm

According to the article, Verizon's entire data network is 3G, with typical download speeds of 0.6 to 1.4 Mbit.

The article cites AT&T's 2.5G as having typical download speeds of 0.4 Mbit.

I don't see any purpose to conjuring up a 2.75G, other than trying to make this seem like an apples-to-apples comparison when it is not.

0.4 Mbit may "approach" 0.6 Mbit in speed, but by my math, 0.6 Mbit is still 50% higher -- and that is the very bottom of the "typical" range.

There is always chance Apple starts selling unlocked CDMA/GSM phones for $700 or so.
Then Apple gets its tax and Verizon's customers can have their blessed IP.

While Verisons ads are good and technically truthful they are misleading. EDGE is commonly referred to as 2.75G so I see now problem with calling it that. 3GPP defined it as a 3G standard but AT&T doesnt list it as such and still a GSM standard, not UMTS.

Verizons EVDO data network may cover a much larger area than AT&Ts UTMS area but Ive been in areas where EDGE was faster than EVDO. Maybe the tower was saturated, had some issue, was too far away, or simply didnt have the bandwidth allocated for it, but it possible that in the rural areas where AT&T doesnt have 3G, Verizon will not have fast EVDO. The minimum doesnt have to be 600Kbps.

I can see what AT&T objected to their ads, but Verizon has AT&T on the ropes with this one. Unfortunately for Verizon LTE will allow AT&T and T-Mobile to push even further into faster speed and more coverage with cheaper upgrades with more developed tech with lower power consumption up to a maximum of 82Mbps while still being 3G. Verizon has to go with 4G. Too bad for Sprint that they choose so poorly. Its almost as if they are trying to self destruct.

As an iPhone owner who also has a Verizon phone (family share plan so that my wife as a physician can have access to a reliable calling network) in a major metropolitan area (L.A.), this add "feels" accurate even if not technically so. I travel every week for work up and down the west coast as well as to the east coast and invariably have coverage issues with my iPhone but not with my Verizon cheapo LG. In fact, the only place where I've experienced the "full potential" of the iPhone was while traveling in Europe (even remote, rural areas).

Would love to hear other's experiences but my gestalt is that this ad is "spot on" and that AT&T's network is measurably inferior (which is really the point of the ad, no?). I actually find the iPhone pretty useless as a phone (too many dropped calls or failure to initiate calls; I can live w/ a slow down in the data stream when web browsing but for conversations, it's a real show stopper.

In reading all the arguments on how much better the AT&T network is based on the specs I thought it interesting to see this demonstration (speed test) conducted in SoCal between iPhone/AT&T, Droid/VZW and G1/TMobile. All the phones showed full 3-G availability. If the specs were the only criteria then AT&T should win hands down each and every time.......sorry but it does not seem to be that way. Also there has been some complaints that the network test is meaningless because the phones are not the same specs. As a user I want to know how the "best" phone offered on each carrier performs on their network.

http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2009/1...rk-speed-test/

I am tired of these commercials too, I will take my AT&T 3.2Mbit connection speed over Verizon’s 1.4Mbit any day. Verizon is really going to have a bigger problem than AT&T once they start servicing all these Android phones. Their network has yet to be "tested".

It is interesting to see that people have no idea about "advertised" MAX theoretical speed that you can never obtain in real life.

Verizon Wireless is quoting real life average speed for their 3G network --- which is going to be a lot better than most of the hyped up advertised theoretical speeds.

EDGE's real life average speed is about 80-120 kbps. 3G UMTS average speed is about 250-300 kbps. EV-DO rev 0 average speed is about 400-800 kbps. EV-DO rev A speed is about 600-1400 kbps. The average speed for HSDPA (both 3.6 and 7.2 mbps versions) are faster than their ev-do cousins --- but not that noticeable on a phone browser.

In the world of class-action lawsuits --- American carriers are always quite truthful in their 3G speed claims (unlike the rest of the world).

If you read closely to AT&T's speed claims --- average download speed 700 kbps - 1700 kbps (which is slightly faster than Verizon's 3G speed claims of 600-1400 kbps).

http://www.wireless.att.com/business...ss/network.jsp

You are not going to see a difference in most real life situations. The iphone and the Droid has basically the same CPU setup. AT&T has a couple of hundred kbps speed advantage than Verizon. Droid has a newer webkit HTML5 browser engine than the iphone and it has a wider screen resolution --- which makes it less likely for you to scroll horizontally when browsing.

The important thing to understand in Apple's claim that the iPhone 3G is faster than the original iPhone is the "3G" part. That is what largely made the difference between the two models. Apple in no way guarantees that 3G in everyones area.

Apple is telling the truth, the iPhone 3G is at least twice as fast as the original iPhone. That statement makes no promises about 3G coverage.

Just because they issued a press release does not mean these chip sets will be in phones next year. VZ will more than likely begin next year with 4G mobile broadband cards. Those would also need CDMA/LTE chipsets.

I agree.

The chipset companies are just hyping their products. The battery life is going to be the key --- which is why all the iphone and android cpu's are underclocked. When first generation of LTE chipsets come out --- the only battery that can handle it will be your laptop battery. The second wave of chipsets will be for cell phones.

What does that have to do with the US being two generations behind Europe and Asia? I'm really not following here.

Actually as a topic, it has been beaten to death already. Most people note that EDGE which as the map notes, most people still suffer under, cannot do voice and data at the same time as well. Finally most people note they would prefer to multitask with multiple data apps and that caching can take care of some issues like with GPS.

I personally cannot imagine many people doing what you are noting because the speakerphone on every iPhone I have encountered is a worthless piece of crap that is far, far too soft to use.


I also don't think you will encounter any 2G iPhone user who will ever claimed to have gotten .4 Mbit data download rates to their phone. I know that when tethering my laptop with my Dare, I have easily gotten 1.5 Mbit if not higher. On my 2G iPhone the max has been about 160kbit.


Actually limiting the data rate might make it more consistent. If the data hogs cannot suck every bit of bandwidth out of the pipe, then that leaves more for everyone else. If your phone is the SUV of data, then having monthly limits (5 gigs) and reasonable but limited download speeds (1.5 Mbit) might be just the thing necessary to insure that a few data hogs don't destroy the network for everyone.


Bingo!

Speakerphone on the 3G[s] is plenty loud. Granted, it won't wake the dead like the Motorola's Razr's speaker, but it's sufficient for my ears. Even so, I rarely use the speakerphone, I use the ear-buds or my car's bluetooth.

I'm sure plenty of people do what I am noting, or the topic would not have been beaten to death already, as you say, even if I happened to have missed it. ;-)

Boygenius carrier network test found AT&T to have an average download speed of 933kbps. The far majority of phones used for the test would have been UMTS.

Verizon EV-DO Rev A average was 701kbps. EV-DO Rev.0 average download speed was 548kbps

double post

Phone sales have not reflected any importance of multitasking. Multitasking itself has not helped sell any phones.

The speaker on the original iPhone was not very good. But I've blown other phones away with the speaker on the 3G.


Or use Verizon's tactic and have mediocre phones that don't entice people to want to use very much data in the first place. You don't have to worry about data hogs.

You Applephiles are funny.

Comparing EDGE to EVDO Rev. 0 (and completely disregarding the fact that most of VZW's network is Rev. A now).

Ignoring the widely reported issues with QoS on ATTM's 3g network that prevent people from either getting anywhere near its reported peak speeds OR even maintaining a consistent usable connection in many places (which I personally can confirm from my own experience using my N95 on ATTM's network here in PHL).

Then there's the article, which consists of a series of logical and technical contortions more impressive than anything I've ever seen in a circus sideshow.

This is my first time here; I followed a link to this article from a phone forum's ATTM subforum (where there are, as one might expect of people who are honest appraisers and not fanboys, a lot of ATTM users frankly cheering VZW for calling ATTM out, in the hope that maybe FINALLY ATTM will be spurred to actually improve its network quality and coverage area). But I'll probably be back; if this article and comment thread are any indication, this is probably a good place to visit from time to time for a laugh or two.