I think their excuse for not having MMS on the iPhone is bulls***.
You can only use one app at a time right? Therefore you wouldn't be using any more of the network than any other phone that has MMS.
MMS on the iPhone shouldn't be any different unless they are planning on allowing video.
While I don?t think that the data usage would be great, considering that the iPhone has a very capable email client which can easily use more for a single image and certainly a lot more than an SMS just for the header data in any email.
However, your idea of using one app at a time wouldn?t add any additional bandwidth is false. The iPhone can load emails while grabbing SMS, MMS, getting push notifications, and loading a webpage in the background all while accessing a completely separate app. Still, it may get people to pay AT&T more for SMS/MMS if it was an option and I can?t imagine that it would even be a blip on any graph when you consider even streaming a single YouTube video a day on the iPhone.
Seriously, what the hell is going on with their system that MMS is such a kerfuffle.
Because of the amount of data it uses, I don't think any single carrier can support all the iPhone customers. But I also think AT&T's network is nowhere near as good as Verizon's.
The problem, though, is that it always works to AT&T's advantage to have all the iPhone customers locked up. Let's say there are X iPhones in the US. If the iPhone becomes available on Verizon, let's say there will be 1.5X iPhones, with 0.75X going to Verizon and AT&T each. (Plenty of people begrudgingly get AT&T service just to get an iPhone -- like me -- and some people actually do get good coverage on AT&T) From AT&T's perspective, they're losing 25% of their iPhone customers.
So it's better for them to wage a PR war about how they totally don't suck even though you can't make a damn phone call on their network than it is for them to admit that no one carrier, least of all AT&T, can handle all of the iPhones in America.
I am very satisfied with AT&T and their service has been great in the areas I frequent here in Houston. Reception has improved considerably and their cell phone service costs are the same exact price for everything that Verizon would offer, except Verizon charges 2.99 a month for visual voicemail. Is AT&T making garbage excuses? Yes. And as is happening overseas, would other networks suffer like AT&T? Yes. The bottom line is that AT&T should have done more and are full of excuses, but when the "mass exodus" of customers leave for Verizon, that will free up AT&T's network and service will improve. I won't be leaving AT&T anytime soon for another carrier until they offer the same exact service with the same exact features (GPS, Wi-Fi, SMS costs, data plan costs, voice plan costs) for a significantly reduced rate. And by significant, I mean more than 30 bucks. Saving 10 bucks a month does nothing for me.
Amen to that. I might have a modicum of sympathy for AT&T if they did not charge a premium for "data service" on top of cell service and on top of an extra charge for Text messaging. That they underestimated the popularity and amount of data usage is neither Apple nor the user's fault. They were certainly more than happy to sign up all comers. Truthfully I would have been satisfied if they had offered a plan where you could opt out of the data plan and just have cell phone service and use wireless hot spots.
You would think instead of AT&T trying to extend it's all inclusive contract with Apple for the iPhone, they would rather see it open to other carriers here in the states and relieve the strain on it's network by those using a lot of data and causing problems for other iPhone users or BlackBerry users or other smartphone users.
If they spend 17 to 18 billion, how long will it take for AT&T to make that back along with the subsidies it has been giving for the iPhone? Let the contract go AT&T and relieve the strain to your network and then keep the iPhone customers that remain, happy, by offering better options than your competitor like free text, varied data rates, increase options of phone minutes then what you have now, pre-paid plans, less restriction to some iPhone apps, customer appreciation bonuses of more text messages for one month, a discount off a month's bill, a coupon to upgrade to the next iPhone release, a rebate for a free iPhone case... the options are as limitless as your imagination. And would save you 17 - 18 billion dollars and in the eyes of those iPhone users who are happy and remain with you, glad that they did.
However, keep being greedy AT&T with this "I want it all" attitude and all you are doing is ever increasing those buying the iPhone to have to "deal" with the service you provide and expanding your network with 17 - 18 billion now to accommodate what you have now is fine, but when the over crowding begins anew, you'll be back to the same gripes and concerns you hear on this board and other sites. And bad PR is hard to overcome regardless of throwing 17 - 18 billion at it!
It's too late. After another dropped call today on another AT&T hotspot. No tethering anounced yet? Verizon here we come. Let the cusomers tell you what network works.
Great! With more whiners like you flying to Verizon's arms (where you will be similarly disappointed because NOBODY announced the iPhone is going there), reception on the AT&T network will improve immensely. So please, leave, by all means.
Agreed! But if Verizon had said to Apple, 'make us a CDMA iPhone as an interim measure until we complete our infrastructure to the new world standard, GSM and we (Verizon) will pay you (Apple) a fee for each iPhone to offset the increased manufacturing costs.' Verizon would have made a ton of cash, not lost any customers and gained a boat load of customers from ATT.
A bit of hindsight there, but nevertheless Verizon knew ATT had a hit three months into the iPhone introduction and could have proposed that scenario.
Thoughts!
Arguing revisionist history now doesn't mean Verizon will get the phone in the near future, or even at all. Your comment makes no sense.
Verizon had their chance and blew it when they tried to dictate to Steve what it should be (red and green buttons anyone?). We should all be thanking AT&T for having the foresight to let Apple do what it does best, and delivering the most kick-ass product to come along in a long time.
Arguing revisionist history now doesn't mean Verizon will get the phone in the near future, or even at all. Your comment makes no sense.
Verizon had their chance and blew it when they tried to dictate to Steve what it should be (red and green buttons anyone?). We should all be thanking AT&T for having the foresight to let Apple do what it does best, and delivering the most kick-ass product to come along in a long time.
You're correct. Once the agreement was 'inked' with ATT, Verizon was left out in the cold as they have been for the last few years concerning the iPhone. Verizon could only have 'negotiated' with Apple during the 'negotiations!'
BTW: No one is 'arguing.' Just having an open discussion is all! Don't be so dismissive...
Arguing revisionist history now doesn't mean Verizon will get the phone in the near future, or even at all. Your comment makes no sense.
Verizon had their chance and blew it when they tried to dictate to Steve what it should be (red and green buttons anyone?). We should all be thanking AT&T for having the foresight to let Apple do what it does best, and delivering the most kick-ass product to come along in a long time.
You are the one that are doing revisionist history.
Apple demanded revenue sharing and a $600 iphone without subsidy with a 2 year contract. You should thank Verizon for having the foresight to see that it would have never worked in real life.
There is no excuse for this. AT&T was vastly under-prepared for the launch/growth of the entire product line (from Gen 1 to 3Gs). They tarnished their own reputation...I am sick of everyone pinning this on iPhone users...what? because we actually have a phone that makes you WANT to use the data connection? A phone with a USEABLE web browser...not the stripped down mobile browsers still commonplace on virtually all blackberry models. Did nobody expect that our data connections would actually be transmitting anything with a PAYLOAD!
I wonder if AT&T ever brought it to Apple's attention when in negotiations regarding its one price unlimited data strategy? What were the data rate plans a few years back prior to the iPhone introduction for any of the carriers? Can anyone recall?
If AT&T tiered it's pricing levels to a variety of choices then maybe those that use the phone for data maybe inclined to do so at a different level of intensity, thus less demand on the AT&T network or at least give AT&T some time to build up it's network to handle the one and only unlimited data plan that is out there now. Of course we know how Steve Jobs likes things simple, whether it is "hidden" buttons on the mouse to uncomplicated one size fits all iPhone unlimited data plans for a cell phone company that might not have been as ready as they hoped when hooking up with Apple.
Not knowing the negotiating history Apple took to find a cell carrier interested not only in it's phone but it's simple one price unlimited data plan for all, one of those life pondering thoughts, what would have happened if Verizon said no, then Cingular said no, then AT&T said no, then Alltel said no, then Sprint said no, then T-Mobile said no, then "insert name here" said no... you get the idea. What would Apple have done? Create their own "network"? Revamp their demands in order to get a cell phone carrier to say yes? While AT&T may not have the best network to handle the data strain, for those using a usable smartphone that no other manufacturer ever contemplated, I think there should be some appreciation towards AT&T for at least saying yes and green lighting Apple's phone. As cool as the iPhone is, if AT&T weren't hard up to stand out amongst the crowded field, management might have said it's more problems then it is worth.
So if others won't say it, I will. Thank you AT&T for at least saying 'yes'!
I live across the street from Seattle Center, where the pretty large music festival Bumbershoot was held this past weekend. From Saturday through Monday, my iPhone 3GS was useless. Outgoing calls just timed out and failed; people calling me went straight to voicemail; text messages failed 6 or 8 times before going through (it is nice that the iPhone makes trying again so easy, I guess).
And this was for a large annual festival that happens every year, and which attracts AT&T's (and the iPhone's) target market. Ouch.
The responsible thing for AT&T to do would be to limit sales of phones in areas that are already massively over-subscribed. It's crazy to take on new customers and provide them with a terrible experience while also degrading the experience of existing customers. Who thought that was a good idea?
I expect to see a bunch of business school studies about how AT&T screwed themselves with too much of a good thing. In their greed to have an exclusive arrangement with Apple, they didn't think through the long term consequences of runaway success. They'd be better off in the long term *without* the exclusive. As it stands, they've destroyed their reputation, pissed off Apple, and every extra iPhone they sell only increases the likelihood of an expensive class action when the proud new owner finds that it can't be reliably used to actually make phone calls.
In the West LA area the service is spotty, and when traveling internationally, I used to get better coverage with T-mobile.
LA does not seem to be a market that one would serve poorly. Hello ATT, lots of folks live in LA, there are few tall buildings to make coverage difficult, and many West Los Angelitos can afford iPhone plans. Way to build customer loyalty - not.
Given ATT's high prices for all things iPhone, and I am really paying for a PHONE, the service is a poor value. I will be glad when I have a choice of services, so I can, hopefully bail, and sign up with a company with better coverage.
For anyone who thinks ATT is too expensive, you are free to go to boost mobile or metropcs. $50 unlimited talk, text and web
I?ve been there with MetroPCS. You pay for the device up front in full, no contract, but the service sucked so bad that switched within a month, which means I ended paying more than I ever did for the prorated cost of the iPhone and the contract fees with AT&T. They also nickel and dime you with payments. They charge a service fee if you want to pay in a store and if you have to ask their website what your bill is they also charge you a fee to check, as I recall.
I forgot to mention the outage last year (3rd week of October) in Westwood that ATT phone support was denying, denying strong, when local ATT store was like, oh yeah, service is out, yeah, we don't know why, someone is working on it, and by the way, live with it, and shut up.
I almost had some business dealings fall through because of that outage, that would have been expensive, very expensive.
And, yes, they denied it on the phone support. Had to go to the local store, to learn that it was not my phone as I was told over and over again on the phone. And the sim card swap the phone folks insisted I do did not help. I really got the run around, what a waste of time. Makes me angry to even think about it.
Later they admitted the problem, and prorated a discount on the service fees. The problem was much bigger than the $40 or so dollars I got back.
Time will tell whether AT&T's campaign and ongoing investments prove effective. The company's agreement with the handset maker is set to expire in 2010, though officials are reportedly working to extend that contract through 2011.
Has the 2010 expiration date ever been confirmed, or is someone just
PS. I know Apple has had it's share of missteps but I'm not paying Apple $100/mo for the next 2 years as I'm doing with ATT.
Well, yes you are paying Apple the next two years.....it's just that Apple got all their money upfront. Each iPhone has a $400 subsidy. AT&T collects it from you over 24 months ($400 / 24 = $16). So, in reality, your $30 Data plan is divided between AT&T and Apple. I almost wish AT&T had it all so that they could spend more on the network upgrades....instead of this money sitting in Apple's bank account.
Also, I wonder what Apple told AT&T regarding iPhone Sales Projections and estimated network usage per iPhone. When the iPhone first came out, the APP Store wasn't even in the contract between AT&T and Apple. It takes a few years to plan, engineer, design, and install cell networks. Local authorities are notorious for delaying construction permits. Did Apple forecast properly and within proper timeframes to inform AT&T? How could they?....they don't even know what applications are arriving tomorrow.
Apple is VERY secretive when it comes to announcing new features. How much time did they give AT&T to ramp up their network.
Yep, no doubt there does seems to be a lot of anger out there. But what I get from the article, and from a lot for the previous posts, is ATT's sort of half-hearted, clumsy attempts at ameliorating the ground swell of disaffection by some of it's customers.
Don't get me wrong, I am not an apologist for AT&T....I too agree with many of the complaints. However, an 18 billion upgrade is not a half-hearted attempt.
Would a company like Sprint even have the capital to take on such an upgrade? They are losing money and customers every quarter.
Verizon is stuck in CDMA-land.....and will be there a few more years before they can offer a truly national 4G network....and by then, all other carriers will have it as well.
I forgot to mention the outage last year (3rd week of October) in Westwood that ATT phone support was denying, denying strong, when local ATT store was like, oh yeah, service is out, yeah, we don't know why, someone is working on it, and by the way, live with it, and shut up.
I almost had some business dealings fall through because of that outage, that would have been expensive, very expensive.
And, yes, they denied it on the phone support. Had to go to the local store, to learn that it was not my phone as I was told over and over again on the phone. And the sim card swap the phone folks insisted I do did not help. I really got the run around, what a waste of time. Makes me angry to even think about it.
Later they admitted the problem, and prorated a discount on the service fees. The problem was much bigger than the $40 or so dollars I got back.
I do not like ATT.
GRRRRRH
one time my wife had a VZ phone that never got full bars anywhere, always dropped calls and had trouble making them. I think it was LG. one day reading Howard Forums i found out everyone had that problem and VZ knew it was a known issue and still sold it
Comments
I think their excuse for not having MMS on the iPhone is bulls***.
You can only use one app at a time right? Therefore you wouldn't be using any more of the network than any other phone that has MMS.
MMS on the iPhone shouldn't be any different unless they are planning on allowing video.
While I don?t think that the data usage would be great, considering that the iPhone has a very capable email client which can easily use more for a single image and certainly a lot more than an SMS just for the header data in any email.
However, your idea of using one app at a time wouldn?t add any additional bandwidth is false. The iPhone can load emails while grabbing SMS, MMS, getting push notifications, and loading a webpage in the background all while accessing a completely separate app. Still, it may get people to pay AT&T more for SMS/MMS if it was an option and I can?t imagine that it would even be a blip on any graph when you consider even streaming a single YouTube video a day on the iPhone.
Seriously, what the hell is going on with their system that MMS is such a kerfuffle.
The problem, though, is that it always works to AT&T's advantage to have all the iPhone customers locked up. Let's say there are X iPhones in the US. If the iPhone becomes available on Verizon, let's say there will be 1.5X iPhones, with 0.75X going to Verizon and AT&T each. (Plenty of people begrudgingly get AT&T service just to get an iPhone -- like me -- and some people actually do get good coverage on AT&T) From AT&T's perspective, they're losing 25% of their iPhone customers.
So it's better for them to wage a PR war about how they totally don't suck even though you can't make a damn phone call on their network than it is for them to admit that no one carrier, least of all AT&T, can handle all of the iPhones in America.
If they spend 17 to 18 billion, how long will it take for AT&T to make that back along with the subsidies it has been giving for the iPhone? Let the contract go AT&T and relieve the strain to your network and then keep the iPhone customers that remain, happy, by offering better options than your competitor like free text, varied data rates, increase options of phone minutes then what you have now, pre-paid plans, less restriction to some iPhone apps, customer appreciation bonuses of more text messages for one month, a discount off a month's bill, a coupon to upgrade to the next iPhone release, a rebate for a free iPhone case... the options are as limitless as your imagination. And would save you 17 - 18 billion dollars and in the eyes of those iPhone users who are happy and remain with you, glad that they did.
However, keep being greedy AT&T with this "I want it all" attitude and all you are doing is ever increasing those buying the iPhone to have to "deal" with the service you provide and expanding your network with 17 - 18 billion now to accommodate what you have now is fine, but when the over crowding begins anew, you'll be back to the same gripes and concerns you hear on this board and other sites. And bad PR is hard to overcome regardless of throwing 17 - 18 billion at it!
It's too late. After another dropped call today on another AT&T hotspot. No tethering anounced yet? Verizon here we come. Let the cusomers tell you what network works.
Great! With more whiners like you flying to Verizon's arms (where you will be similarly disappointed because NOBODY announced the iPhone is going there), reception on the AT&T network will improve immensely. So please, leave, by all means.
Agreed! But if Verizon had said to Apple, 'make us a CDMA iPhone as an interim measure until we complete our infrastructure to the new world standard, GSM and we (Verizon) will pay you (Apple) a fee for each iPhone to offset the increased manufacturing costs.' Verizon would have made a ton of cash, not lost any customers and gained a boat load of customers from ATT.
A bit of hindsight there, but nevertheless Verizon knew ATT had a hit three months into the iPhone introduction and could have proposed that scenario.
Thoughts!
Arguing revisionist history now doesn't mean Verizon will get the phone in the near future, or even at all. Your comment makes no sense.
Verizon had their chance and blew it when they tried to dictate to Steve what it should be (red and green buttons anyone?). We should all be thanking AT&T for having the foresight to let Apple do what it does best, and delivering the most kick-ass product to come along in a long time.
Arguing revisionist history now doesn't mean Verizon will get the phone in the near future, or even at all. Your comment makes no sense.
Verizon had their chance and blew it when they tried to dictate to Steve what it should be (red and green buttons anyone?). We should all be thanking AT&T for having the foresight to let Apple do what it does best, and delivering the most kick-ass product to come along in a long time.
You're correct. Once the agreement was 'inked' with ATT, Verizon was left out in the cold as they have been for the last few years concerning the iPhone. Verizon could only have 'negotiated' with Apple during the 'negotiations!'
BTW: No one is 'arguing.' Just having an open discussion is all! Don't be so dismissive...
Arguing revisionist history now doesn't mean Verizon will get the phone in the near future, or even at all. Your comment makes no sense.
Verizon had their chance and blew it when they tried to dictate to Steve what it should be (red and green buttons anyone?). We should all be thanking AT&T for having the foresight to let Apple do what it does best, and delivering the most kick-ass product to come along in a long time.
You are the one that are doing revisionist history.
Apple demanded revenue sharing and a $600 iphone without subsidy with a 2 year contract. You should thank Verizon for having the foresight to see that it would have never worked in real life.
There is no excuse for this. AT&T was vastly under-prepared for the launch/growth of the entire product line (from Gen 1 to 3Gs). They tarnished their own reputation...I am sick of everyone pinning this on iPhone users...what? because we actually have a phone that makes you WANT to use the data connection? A phone with a USEABLE web browser...not the stripped down mobile browsers still commonplace on virtually all blackberry models. Did nobody expect that our data connections would actually be transmitting anything with a PAYLOAD!
I wonder if AT&T ever brought it to Apple's attention when in negotiations regarding its one price unlimited data strategy? What were the data rate plans a few years back prior to the iPhone introduction for any of the carriers? Can anyone recall?
If AT&T tiered it's pricing levels to a variety of choices then maybe those that use the phone for data maybe inclined to do so at a different level of intensity, thus less demand on the AT&T network or at least give AT&T some time to build up it's network to handle the one and only unlimited data plan that is out there now. Of course we know how Steve Jobs likes things simple, whether it is "hidden" buttons on the mouse to uncomplicated one size fits all iPhone unlimited data plans for a cell phone company that might not have been as ready as they hoped when hooking up with Apple.
Not knowing the negotiating history Apple took to find a cell carrier interested not only in it's phone but it's simple one price unlimited data plan for all, one of those life pondering thoughts, what would have happened if Verizon said no, then Cingular said no, then AT&T said no, then Alltel said no, then Sprint said no, then T-Mobile said no, then "insert name here" said no... you get the idea. What would Apple have done? Create their own "network"? Revamp their demands in order to get a cell phone carrier to say yes? While AT&T may not have the best network to handle the data strain, for those using a usable smartphone that no other manufacturer ever contemplated, I think there should be some appreciation towards AT&T for at least saying yes and green lighting Apple's phone. As cool as the iPhone is, if AT&T weren't hard up to stand out amongst the crowded field, management might have said it's more problems then it is worth.
So if others won't say it, I will. Thank you AT&T for at least saying 'yes'!
I live across the street from Seattle Center, where the pretty large music festival Bumbershoot was held this past weekend. From Saturday through Monday, my iPhone 3GS was useless. Outgoing calls just timed out and failed; people calling me went straight to voicemail; text messages failed 6 or 8 times before going through (it is nice that the iPhone makes trying again so easy, I guess).
And this was for a large annual festival that happens every year, and which attracts AT&T's (and the iPhone's) target market. Ouch.
The responsible thing for AT&T to do would be to limit sales of phones in areas that are already massively over-subscribed. It's crazy to take on new customers and provide them with a terrible experience while also degrading the experience of existing customers. Who thought that was a good idea?
I expect to see a bunch of business school studies about how AT&T screwed themselves with too much of a good thing. In their greed to have an exclusive arrangement with Apple, they didn't think through the long term consequences of runaway success. They'd be better off in the long term *without* the exclusive. As it stands, they've destroyed their reputation, pissed off Apple, and every extra iPhone they sell only increases the likelihood of an expensive class action when the proud new owner finds that it can't be reliably used to actually make phone calls.
LA does not seem to be a market that one would serve poorly. Hello ATT, lots of folks live in LA, there are few tall buildings to make coverage difficult, and many West Los Angelitos can afford iPhone plans. Way to build customer loyalty - not.
Given ATT's high prices for all things iPhone, and I am really paying for a PHONE, the service is a poor value. I will be glad when I have a choice of services, so I can, hopefully bail, and sign up with a company with better coverage.
For anyone who thinks ATT is too expensive, you are free to go to boost mobile or metropcs. $50 unlimited talk, text and web
I?ve been there with MetroPCS. You pay for the device up front in full, no contract, but the service sucked so bad that switched within a month, which means I ended paying more than I ever did for the prorated cost of the iPhone and the contract fees with AT&T. They also nickel and dime you with payments. They charge a service fee if you want to pay in a store and if you have to ask their website what your bill is they also charge you a fee to check, as I recall.
I almost had some business dealings fall through because of that outage, that would have been expensive, very expensive.
And, yes, they denied it on the phone support. Had to go to the local store, to learn that it was not my phone as I was told over and over again on the phone. And the sim card swap the phone folks insisted I do did not help. I really got the run around, what a waste of time. Makes me angry to even think about it.
Later they admitted the problem, and prorated a discount on the service fees. The problem was much bigger than the $40 or so dollars I got back.
I do not like ATT.
GRRRRRH
Time will tell whether AT&T's campaign and ongoing investments prove effective. The company's agreement with the handset maker is set to expire in 2010, though officials are reportedly working to extend that contract through 2011.
Has the 2010 expiration date ever been confirmed, or is someone just
speculating?
PS. I know Apple has had it's share of missteps but I'm not paying Apple $100/mo for the next 2 years as I'm doing with ATT.
Well, yes you are paying Apple the next two years.....it's just that Apple got all their money upfront. Each iPhone has a $400 subsidy. AT&T collects it from you over 24 months ($400 / 24 = $16). So, in reality, your $30 Data plan is divided between AT&T and Apple. I almost wish AT&T had it all so that they could spend more on the network upgrades....instead of this money sitting in Apple's bank account.
Also, I wonder what Apple told AT&T regarding iPhone Sales Projections and estimated network usage per iPhone. When the iPhone first came out, the APP Store wasn't even in the contract between AT&T and Apple. It takes a few years to plan, engineer, design, and install cell networks. Local authorities are notorious for delaying construction permits. Did Apple forecast properly and within proper timeframes to inform AT&T? How could they?....they don't even know what applications are arriving tomorrow.
Apple is VERY secretive when it comes to announcing new features. How much time did they give AT&T to ramp up their network.
Yep, no doubt there does seems to be a lot of anger out there. But what I get from the article, and from a lot for the previous posts, is ATT's sort of half-hearted, clumsy attempts at ameliorating the ground swell of disaffection by some of it's customers.
Don't get me wrong, I am not an apologist for AT&T....I too agree with many of the complaints. However, an 18 billion upgrade is not a half-hearted attempt.
Would a company like Sprint even have the capital to take on such an upgrade? They are losing money and customers every quarter.
Verizon is stuck in CDMA-land.....and will be there a few more years before they can offer a truly national 4G network....and by then, all other carriers will have it as well.
I forgot to mention the outage last year (3rd week of October) in Westwood that ATT phone support was denying, denying strong, when local ATT store was like, oh yeah, service is out, yeah, we don't know why, someone is working on it, and by the way, live with it, and shut up.
I almost had some business dealings fall through because of that outage, that would have been expensive, very expensive.
And, yes, they denied it on the phone support. Had to go to the local store, to learn that it was not my phone as I was told over and over again on the phone. And the sim card swap the phone folks insisted I do did not help. I really got the run around, what a waste of time. Makes me angry to even think about it.
Later they admitted the problem, and prorated a discount on the service fees. The problem was much bigger than the $40 or so dollars I got back.
I do not like ATT.
GRRRRRH
one time my wife had a VZ phone that never got full bars anywhere, always dropped calls and had trouble making them. I think it was LG. one day reading Howard Forums i found out everyone had that problem and VZ knew it was a known issue and still sold it