or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T asks court to pull Verizon's 'misleading' iPhone ads
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T asks court to pull Verizon's 'misleading' iPhone ads - Page 3

post #81 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

There is no iphone profit.

Apple is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.

I believe you meant to claim the following:

AT&T is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.
post #82 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

There is an upgrade available through ev-do rev B. South Korea's LG Telecom is upgrading their ev-do rev A network to rev B.

http://www.telecomskorea.com/beyond-3g-7381.html

Verizon chose not to upgrade.

The cost/benefit to them was negligible in lieu of moving to 4G. They could give a rat's ass about you getting better performance.
post #83 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Verizon just doubled it's early cancellation fee to $350.

They've been caught skimming and falsifying charges on bandwidth usage [must be hidden deep in the fine print that says < 1kb == 1MB data transfer] and no matter how much they claim their 3G cover is that jack up on the rates is going to piss off large numbers of consumers, not to mention companies like Apple.

Business partners love nickel and diming --- because they get a cut on the revenue.

There are no pissing off large number of consumers --- Verizon remains at the top of the consumer satisfaction surveys and AT&T remains at the bottom.
post #84 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

There is no iphone profit.

Apple is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.

What does this mean!? Do you mean "ATT" in the second sentence?

In any event, how do you know? If you can point to something in their financials, that would help, for starters.
post #85 of 134
AT&T data coverage DOES NOT mean AT&T data 3G coverage, the AT&T guys also include their legacy, low speed 2.5G GPRS/EDGE network on their version of the map. So Verizon is technically not lying, since they're doing a head to head comparison for 3G ONLY. Honestly, browsing on 2.5G is so painful, I kinda like the fact that Verizon is kicking AT&T's butt on those ads, may eventually make them speed up their HSPA and LTE rollouts (they CLEARLY need to).
post #86 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The cost/benefit to them was negligible in lieu of moving to 4G. They could give a rat's ass about you getting better performance.

Precisely, the cost/benefit is negligible. You ain't going to get much better performance and you won't notice it on a cell phone.

Which means what? The cost/benefit is also negligible on 7.2 mbps and 14.4 mbps HSDPA upgrades. You ain't going to see much of a difference on a cell phone.
post #87 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

In any event, how do you know? If you can point to something in their financials, that would help, for starters.

The whole wall street is wondering about that, isn't it?

Verizon's share price has been doing better than AT&T's share price since the iphone was launched 2 years ago.
post #88 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

The whole wall street is wondering about that, isn't it?

Verizon's share price has been doing better than AT&T's share price since the iphone was launched 2 years ago.

I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.

More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?
post #89 of 134
Hey- does my AppleTV qualify for the land of the misfit toys?
post #90 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.

More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?

It means that Verizon has more financial muscle to spend on their network build-outs.
post #91 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.

More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?

The market understands that Verizon is in a much better position to remain the largest Tier 1 in North America... Verizon has merged its entities way back, is a much better oiled machine, and has really, really deep pockets, while ATT (technically SBC) is a cluster f*** of companies smashed together: Cingular, ATT Wireless (Cingular Blue), SBC and all the other MaBells. A little history about this huge mess... http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/
post #92 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It means that Verizon has more financial muscle to spend on their network build-outs.

What does that mean? What 'financial muscle'?
post #93 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It means that Verizon has more financial muscle to spend on their network build-outs.

OK, since I need to call it a day, it's time to call you on your FUD-based claims.

First, between Jan 2007 (when iPhone was announced) and now, ATTs share price has fallen 24%. Verizon, during the same time, has fallen 20%. Hardly a statistically meaningful difference.

Second, ATTs debt capacity is much higher than that of Verizon i.e., they can access the debt markets more easily and cheaply than Verizon: Debt-to-Mkt Cap is 47% for ATT compared to 73% for Verizon.

Three, when it comes to size of equity base, ATTs market cap ($155B) is much higher than that of Verizon ($86B). In other words, for equivalent dollar amounts of equity raised (not that I would recommend that), ATTs shareholders will suffer smaller dilution than Verizons.

Four, Verizons capex spending needs are likely to be far greater than that of ATT. Why? Verizon has an obsolete, largely lonely, technology (CDMA). ATT, being GSM, is far more pervasive around the world. In other words, Verizons growth can only come from newer technological investments and junking what it currently has. ATTs can not only come from its newer investments, but it can also ride the existing infrastructure for much longer than ATT.

Bottom line: From an investment spending (and financing) standpoint, ATT is better positioned than Verizon.
post #94 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

There is no iphone profit.

Apple is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.

Surely you realize that AT&T subsidizes iPhone, not Apple. Apple receives full profit from all iPhone sales. Hence the contract lock in.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #95 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Bottom line: From an investment spending (and financing) standpoint, ATT is better positioned than Verizon.

Verizons LTE build out will likely cost them a lot more than AT&T is spending on building up HSPA. it will likely be wrought with a lot more hiccups compared to the better established HSPA protocols and may even have speed-to-power efficiency gains over LTE for many years to come. I really cant wait to see the power consumption and radio sizes for LTE.


Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Surely you realize that AT&T subsidizes iPhone, not Apple. Apple receives full profit from all iPhone sales. Hence the contract lock in.

Every single iPhone user paying at least $69/month, having less turn over rate, higher satisfaction level, beating Verizon is net ads last quarter, and the cost savings from not having to deal with any physical or call center tech support for the device. AT&t is surely spending a lot on their network, but that would have to have been spent anyway and its adding to the value of their company so its not like its a bad thing.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #96 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

But we are also talking about a piece written by Prince McLean --- who tends to not be that accurate on a lot of things.

Verizon finished their ev-do rev A overlay in 2007 --- not a single part of Verizon's network is on the older ev-do rev 0 technology.

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2007/...ev-a-overhaul/

EDGE has a theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and a real life average speed of 150 kbps. Prince likes to exaggerate.

No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.

Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.
post #97 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.

Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.

You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated it’s network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldn’t have included any of the Altell acquisition which didn’t take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?

edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.

http://evdomaps.com/
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #98 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated its network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldnt have included any of the Altell acquisition which didnt take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?

edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.
http://evdomaps.com/

From the article AT&T defends its data network from Verizon ad attacks

"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.

Not a question of fact! Verizon plainly states that it counts its low end EVDO as 3G but doesn't count EDGE, which allows it to portray maps that indicate AT&T does not have data service across much of the US, which is not true.

I'm not suggesting AT&T's service is flawless; I have a dead zone in my house. But Verizon is clearly lying, and doing so in a way that is completely unnecessary. It could easily just claim it has a broader 3G network, even one that covers 1.25x the population of AT&T's. But Verizon has to overstate its case, and lie in the process. That's bad form. Boo.

The thing is, Verizon is really just advertising the iPhone. You never advertise the competition. AT&T doesn't post ads about Verizon and the Droid or the Storm or whatever. Advertising your competition is almost always bad news. Of course, there are exceptions. The Get a Mac ads are effective because Apple is a 10% minority underdog in PCs.

But Verizon is bigger than AT&T and it doesn't have an iPhone to sell. So yapping about "there's a (m)app for that" and claiming that the iPhone doesn't work, when clearly it does, is really just bad marketing.
post #99 of 134
Its amazing that anyone can defend AT&T in this dispute.

Verizon clearly states in the ads "3G coverage". No ambiguity. Maps are accurate.

AT&T doesn't have a case. They need to improve their coverage. Coverage even in 3G areas is horrible. All they're doing is attracting more attention to how bad their coverage is. Trying to rationalize it in all sorts of confusing ways will not work. AT&T does not excel at marketing.

Their only hope is to highlite coverage improvements (if there really are any) and hang their hat on how superior the iPhone is. Otherwise they're toast.
post #100 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

(False claims boldly made) .

I just realized samab = teckstud. Both make wild trollish assertions, call Prince Dan a liar over things that aren't even wrong, and happen to always show up in the same few minutes to post lots of comments all saying the same thing over and over again until it appears to be true.
post #101 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm3 View Post

Its amazing that anyone can defend Verizon in this dispute.

Verizon clearly states (in really tiny letters) in the ads "3G coverage" (while clearly insinuating that white space = no service). No (shame). Maps are accurate (geographically, but not for service, creating false assertions to confuse users).

Verizon doesn't have (an iPhone). They need to improve their (bargaining skills). Coverage even in 3G areas is (not flawless). All they're doing is attracting more attention to how bad their (phone selection) is. Trying to (demonize the iPhone) it in all sorts of confusing ways will not work. Verizon does not excel at marketing.

Their only hope is to highlight (phone) improvements (if there really are any) and hang their (head) over how superior the iPhone is. Otherwise they're (losing subscribers and failing to maintain profitability).

There, fixed that for you!
post #102 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.

Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.

Get real. I have NEVER seen speeds that low from EVDO in practice. Throwing around false numbers.

EVDO rates from EVDOinfo.com
1xRTT: 50Kbps - 100Kbps Upload and Download (bursts to 144Kbps)
EVDO Rev 0: 400kbps-1000kbps Download (bursts up to 2.0Mbps), 50kbps-100kbps Upload (bursts to 144Kbps)
EVDO Rev A: 600Kbps-1,400Kbps Download (bursts to 3.1Mbps), 500Kbps-800Kbps Upload (bursts to 1.8Mbps)

I'm amazed that someone can twist 400-1000kbps to be 40-200 just to try and protect AT&T. Its not true. EVDO just isn't that slow.

Even with 1xRTT I rarely received less than 140kbps, whereas my iPhone reports 3G coverage at my house and gets a whopping 60kbps. Should I report that as real 3G speeds? Should I say that AT&T's 3G coverage map is overly generous because I'm shown squarely in a coverage area?
post #103 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated its network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldnt have included any of the Altell acquisition which didnt take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?

edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.
http://evdomaps.com/

Might just be a labeling problem. I went to that link and all teh EVDO Rev. 0 sites were apparently pulling down 2 mbps. Below is an example:

Pomeroy Rd. Jackson, MI 49201
Carrier: Alltel\tCreate Date: 10/28/2008
Computer: Custom Built Desktop\tUpdate Date: 10/28/2008
Network: Rev0\tLocation: indoors
Download: 2675\tUpload: 104
dBm: 90\tBars: 3
EVDO device: EC228
Antennas or Amps Used: None

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #104 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

Not a question of fact! Verizon plainly states that it counts its low end EVDO as 3G but doesn't count EDGE, which allows it to portray maps that indicate AT&T does not have data service across much of the US, which is not true.

EVDO is considered a 3G technology and EDGE, while first defined by the ITU and 3GPP as a 3G technology, is known as a 2.5G or 2.75G tech due to it still being the GSM family. More importantly, AT&T has never advertised it as such so an ad clearly stating a 3G map should should not include EDGE or GPRS coverage.

Most importantly, this marketing jargon we know as ‘3G’ may be hurting AT&T right now but Verizon is not lying. These marketing labels do not and have not ever referred to actual speed of the network, just a lame generalization of the generation of the technology being used across these disparate network types. AT&T should come back with ads about the speed of their network and the inherent superior features like simultaneous voice and data, but I have no issue with Verizon’s campaign.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

I just realized samab = teckstud. Both make wild trollish assertions, call Prince Dan a liar over things that aren't even wrong, and happen to always show up in the same few minutes to post lots of comments all saying the same thing over and over again until it appears to be true.

I have to disagree with this, too. While I usually disagree with Samab views for Verizon and against AT&T you can hold a conversation with him, he actually comprehends what you write even if he doesn’t agree with it, he never flips his position when he feels cornered, and he defends his PoV well with specific details and links to sites to support his view. I would think Samab would be insulted by such a comment. I know I would be.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #105 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.

Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.

Even if there are parts of the 3G map that are ev-do rev 0 --- the actual spec for the ev-do rev 0 network is still 2.4 mbps peak max download speed and 400-700 average download speed (take the average of the two numbers and it's 550 kbps).

http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g_1xEV-DO.asp

The EDGE spec is 384 kbps peak max download speed and averages 150 kbps.

So the disputed ev-do rev 0 --- is 3.7x times faster than EDGE.

You might as well believe that your 54G wireless router actually gives you 54 mbps.
post #106 of 134
The main point regarding these Verizon ads are not about AT&T but rather what Verizon considers 3G. The Verizon map shows both Verizon's EV-DO and EV-DO Rev as both being 3G. AT&T's map would look exactly the same as Verizon if AT&T included EDGE with their 3G network.

EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.

EV-DO Rev is extremely slow compared to AT&T's 3G. Verizon's 3G download speeds run between 600 kbit/s to 1.4 Mbit/s - AT&T's 3G network has an average speed of 2x faster and up to 4x faster and AT&T is currently rolling out it's next generation of 3G which will boost it over 7.2 Mbit/s.

Verizon will not see any boost in their network speed until they switch to the GSM technology curve AT&T uses and rollout LTE in 2012. So for the next two years Verizon is going to be have half to five times slower network speed than AT&T.
Science and technology multiply around us. To an increasing extent they dictate the languages in which we speak and think. Either we use those languages, or we remain mute.
J G Ballard
Reply
Science and technology multiply around us. To an increasing extent they dictate the languages in which we speak and think. Either we use those languages, or we remain mute.
J G Ballard
Reply
post #107 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcashe View Post

AT&T's map would look exactly the same as Verizon if AT&T included EDGE with their 3G network.

EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.

Even if that were true, which I dont think it is, the fact remains that EVDO is CDMAs 3G tech and EDGE is not considered GSMs 3G tech. These network types shouldnt have interchangeable terminology but for marketing reasons they do so AT&T needs to find a more productive way to combat Verizons ads.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #108 of 134
[QUOTE=solipsism;1520265]EVDO is considered a 3G technology and EDGE, while first defined by the ITU and 3GPP as a 3G technology, is known as a 2.5G or 2.75G tech due to it still being the GSM family."

EDGE, 3G, and LTE are all part of the GSM technology curve.
Science and technology multiply around us. To an increasing extent they dictate the languages in which we speak and think. Either we use those languages, or we remain mute.
J G Ballard
Reply
Science and technology multiply around us. To an increasing extent they dictate the languages in which we speak and think. Either we use those languages, or we remain mute.
J G Ballard
Reply
post #109 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcashe View Post

EDGE, 3G, and LTE are all part of the GSM technology curve.

3G defines nothing. Its not a technical term, its a general classification.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #110 of 134
Sorry AT&T, the ads clearly state 3G coverage and have a disclaimer "Voice & data services outside of 3G coverage area". You have no case. You're just making yourself look worse.

I'm an iPhone user now. If this is how you spend the money I give you every month rather than improving your piss poor service, you're going to lose me as a customer. I live in SoCal and the coverage here is absolutely terrible. Spend the money customers give you every month to improve your service, not silence those who point out FACTS that your service is downright terrible.
post #111 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcashe View Post

The main point regarding these Verizon ads are not about AT&T but rather what Verizon considers 3G. The Verizon map shows both Verizon's EV-DO and EV-DO Rev as both being 3G. AT&T's map would look exactly the same as Verizon if AT&T included EDGE with their 3G network.

EV-DO is equal to 2G EDGE in speed.

EV-DO Rev is extremely slow compared to AT&T's 3G. Verizon's 3G download speeds run between 600 kbit/s to 1.4 Mbit/s - AT&T's 3G network has an average speed of 2x faster and up to 4x faster and AT&T is currently rolling out it's next generation of 3G which will boost it over 7.2 Mbit/s.

Verizon will not see any boost in their network speed until they switch to the GSM technology curve AT&T uses and rollout LTE in 2012. So for the next two years Verizon is going to be have half to five times slower network speed than AT&T.

EDGE has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 384 kbps. EV-DO rev O has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 2.4 mbps. How is ev-do rev 0 equal to 2G edge in speed.

3.6 mbps HSDPA has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 3.6 mbps. EV-DO rev A has a "PAPER SPEC" speed of 3.1 mbps.

AT&T advertises their 3G network to be averaging 700-1700 kbps. Verizon advertises their 3G network to be averaging 600-1400 kbps. Real life difference? Zero. Your web browsing will be 0.1 second faster on the AT&T network. Your ringtone downloading will be 2 seconds faster on the AT&T network. Your music downloading will be 5 second faster per song on the AT&T network.
post #112 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcashe View Post

EDGE, 3G, and LTE are all part of the GSM technology curve.

ITU is an international organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Negotiations of the 3G standard is like negotiating UN resolutions --- it's full of loopholes so that everyone goes home happy.

The standard has always have the 3 conditions --- nothing was changed suddenly. The cell phone manufacturers and cell phone service companies have budgets to hype their "interpretations" of the 3G standard. It's not ITU's fault that they don't have a big budget to tell you that the whole definition of what 3G is.

Sometimes, cell phone service companies like to "under" hype a technology as well. China Unicom (a cell phone service provider in communist China) liked to upgrade their existing 1x network to ev-do. The problem is that Communist China hadn't given out any 3G licenses yet.

Since a 1x to ev-do upgrade can be done on existing 2G frequencies, China Unicom did 3G without waiting for the chinese government to give them a 3G license. But China Unicom doesn't want to anger the chinese government because the official chinese government policy as of 2003 was to wait until 3G technology has matured before they give out 3G licenses. So China Unicom called their ev-do upgrade as "2.75 G" --- even though everybody knows that ev-do is a true 3G technology.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/...ent_249477.htm

It's just a PR label that doesn't have much to do with anything.
post #113 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

3.6 mbps HSDPA has a "PAPER SPEC" max speed of 3.6 mbps. EV-DO rev A has a "PAPER SPEC" speed of 3.1 mbps.

Its disingenuous to refere to HSDPA as only being 3.6Mbps without stating the current deployments and potential max speeds of later revisions built off the technology.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #114 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It’s disingenuous to refere to HSDPA as only being 3.6Mbps without stating the current deployments and potential max speeds of later revisions built off the technology.

That's why I am specifically saying that a 3.6 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 3.6 mbps.

I can further explain that a 7.2 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 7.2 mbps and EV-DO rev B (which is being deployed by LG Telecom in South Korea) has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 9.3 mbps.

EV-DO uses 1.5 MHz channels and EV-DO rev B is basically bundling 3 1.5 MHz channels together. 3x1.5 MHz channels occupies 5 MHz spectrum (which is the space of a single downlink HSDPA channel) and the initial rev B is just 3x3.1 mbps = 9.3 mbps (which competes with 7.2 mbps HSDPA). If the carriers decides to add a few extra minor upgrade it goes to 3x4.9 mbps = 14.7 mbps (which competes with 14.4 mbps HSDPA).
post #115 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

That's why I am specifically saying that a 3.6 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 3.6 mbps.

I can further explain that a 7.2 mbps HSDPA has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 7.2 mbps and EV-DO rev B (which is being deployed by LG Telecom in South Korea) has a max theoretical paper spec downlink speed of 9.3 mbps.

Your comment implied that AT&T and Verizon were pretty close on theoretical speed so their 3G technologies. You know this isnt true and you know that 3GPPs Rev.9 has 84,4Mbps up and 42Mbps down for a technology still a 3G mobile telephony communications protocol.

You also know that Verizon and Sprint have no interest in ever introducing that dead end that is EVDO Rev. B. They are moving to LTE and that will take a lot of money, a lot of time, and be problematic for mobile handhelds for sometime before it becomes a real competitor to HSPA. Though AT&T will likely lag on network build up and thus lose good deal of their advantage.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #116 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Your comment implied that AT&T and Verizon were pretty close on theoretical speed so their 3G technologies. You know this isn’t true and you know that 3GPP’s Rev.9 has 84,4Mbps up and 42Mbps down for a technology still a 3G mobile telephony communications protocol.

You also know that Verizon and Sprint have no interest in ever introducing that dead end that is EVDO Rev. B. They are moving to LTE and that will take a lot of money, a lot of time, and be problematic for mobile handhelds for sometime before it becomes a real competitor to HSPA. Though AT&T will likely lag on network build up and thus lose good deal of their advantage.

I never claimed about anything on theoretical speeds. It's the most silliest thing to talk about theoretical speed that can never be achieved in real life.

There are practical reasons for deploying narrow channels instead of bundling them together (like rev B). Spectrum space is expensive. If you have 12 MHz spectrum available --- you can only do 1 up and 1 down 5 MHz channel for HSDPA (and have 2 MHz unused spectrum that you can't use at all). If Verizon has the same 12 MHz spectrum, it can deploy 8 channels of 1.5 MHz channels and used the full 12 MHz spectrum.

To be able to use that extra 2 MHz spectrum may be night and day for your wireless speed in real life and it is going to be more relevent than silly theoretical speed.
post #117 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

There is no iphone profit.

Apple is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.


i regret my poor english
i am born in the third world country of Brooklyn
apple is apple of course
but ATT took THE money they earned from data charges <<that $70 DOLLAR A MONTH FEE >
And plowed it right back into building out the infrastructure for the 4g/7g network .
Look out your window right now and a white van is parked down the block .Thats ATT fixing up the cable wire.
All the fiber optic cable JD UUN-PHASE buried YEARS ago is being is no longer dark .
It's an all out war that wastes the earths resources for no good reason at all . \\
i understood your post but >> ATT is sucking up A ton of cash every day >>besides the apple tax 
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #118 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I believe you meant to claim the following:

AT&T is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.

is that what he meant
damn my post looks stupid now .
hmm that apple tax is a killer
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #119 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by warpdag View Post

... the AT&T guys also include their legacy, low speed 2.5G GPRS/EDGE network on their version of the map.

So, what is the map labeled on AT&T's web site? If Verizon has removed coverage areas from AT&T's map, regardless of the labeling, AT&T's case may be stronger than I initially thought it was, since the map is then no longer AT&T's map and they aren't just, "using their own map against them." If they've just cherry picked the map from AT&T, then the case doesn't seem so strong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

... EDGE, while first defined by the ITU and 3GPP as a 3G technology, is known as a 2.5G or 2.75G tech due to it still being the GSM family. More importantly, AT&T has never advertised it as such so an ad clearly stating a 3G map should should not include EDGE or GPRS coverage.

So, basically, it seems that all AT&T needs to do to shut down these ads is to make sure their data coverage maps are labeled 3G, including the EDGE areas -- after all, technically, EDGE is just a flavor of 3G. They can differentiate between EDGE and current 3G areas, and new higher speed areas with shading, throw in a bunch of *, **, ***, ... with fine print explaining the distinctions.

At that point, if AT&T starts labeling everything it technically can 3G, Verizon will have to stop airing the ads (or a suit will become a slam dunk), and it will look to the public like Verizon was lying all along. AT&T can deflect the heat from labeling EDGE 3G by pointing out that it's technically correct, and they were forced to do it, "to head off misleading advertising, such as Verizon's."
post #120 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboNerd View Post

The misleading part is how friggin' slow the "3G" coverage in the vast majority of Verizon's network is, since anything CDMA is considered "3G"... even if it's the dog-slow 1xRTT. Only the EVDO-ehanced areas compare to the 3G of the iPhone (and from my experience, Verizon's EVDO is faster than AT&T's 3G). In most places without the EV ehancements, EDGE is faster than the Verizon "3G". (Which is pretty sad.)

I'm not an AT&T fan by any means, but sheesh, Verizon is reeeeeealy stretching the truth here. A huge chunk of their "3G" network is pretty much just "2.5G" just like EDGE.

Agreed. The interesting thing is that Verizon has 2.5 times as many unserved customers as AT&T. I would argue that unserved customers is a more serious issue than customers who have 2.5G instead of 3G.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

The point that the ATT lawyers will make is that consumers are used to maps like those depicted in the ad that the white spaces are representing no coverage areas - not just no 3G coverage. Even though Verizon shows the maps to represent 3G coverage, we consumers see it as no coverage. In a tv ad, you're not thinking about ATT's white space being covered by their edge network, because you only have mere seconds to even look at the map. I would tend to agree with ATT in this case, although I wouldn't fight it with a lawsuit.

It's even worse than that. Verizon's map has a key where white space is stated to be 'no coverage'. So by using white space in AT&T's map, they're making a very strong implication that there's no coverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Facts are facts --- geographically Verizon's coverage is really 5x as large as AT&T's. Only that Verizon is covering most of them in Alltel territory --- miles and miles of corn field in the midwest.

It's not enough to prove that the statement is factually correct. Verizon will also have to prove that they didn't mislead customers. By using white space and identifying it in their key as 'no coverage', and by implying in their ads (such as the misfit toys ad) that the iPhone is worthless in most of the country, they're on pretty shaky grounds. AT&T could win this one.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T asks court to pull Verizon's 'misleading' iPhone ads