Originally Posted by DJRumpy
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Zoolook
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!
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.