Prince, you're presenting inaccurate information in your AT&T vs Verizon 3G Speed Graph. As a VZW customer, I can say that I commonly get connection speeds in excess of the 1.4 Mbps shown in Prince's graph as the maximum, ideal speed. If you look at VZW's site: http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/m...?page=coverage
...you'll see that they report the two speed numbers shown - 600 kbps and 1.4 Mbps - on the graph as the upper and lower typical speeds based on actual download transfers. As a prior poster pointed out, the "ideal" or signaling rate speed of EV-DO Rev A is 3.1 Mbps. Verizon doesn't report signaling rates. So, where do the numbers in the AT&T bar come from? They max "ideal" rate shown is actually the signaling rate of 3.6 Mbps. I can't find where AT&T advertises a range of "typical" speeds achieved based on actual downloads. They simply advertise their signaling rate: http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/wh...gy/3g-umts.jsp
As I hope everyone is aware, signaling rate does not represent achievable download speeds - even in ideal circumstances - due to wireless network overhead.
In other words the graph shows signaling rates for AT&T against actual download speeds for Verizon as if they're comparable terms. Its a patently false comparison with no backup or explanation of sources for their reported "typical" and "ideal" numbers on the AT&T side.
Its funny how AI calls shenanigans on VZW for presenting unlike coverage types in their advertising and then, in AI's refutation article, pulls the same shenanigan with speeds. In other words, AI is presenting information no more accurate than you'd expect from advertising.
I'll be happy to read the review where the iPhone speakerphone is praised. Everyone I have read notes it is subpar or politely says it is "too soft." If I'm being authoritative, it is because I haven't read a source contrary to the contention. Feel free to produce it.
The speaker isn't at the top of anyone's make/break feature list. You are the only one placing this much importance on it.
Quote:
I know I do as one of those 50+ million. There are only so many things you can fix with software hacks and jailbreaking.
Why did you bother with the iPhone, when you literally have hundreds of other phones to choose from?
Quote:
All of them because the notification system is all wrong. I don't want little read numbers spread across nine screens or something popping up to be dismissed without the ability to address it unless I close what I am presently doing and go to the app that handles it.
Before you said the notification system didn't work, now you are saying you don't like the alerts. Those are two different problems.
Quote:
Actually surveys and studies have put it in the crapper as well.
Surveys and studies are based on perception. They don't actually have to be based on facts.
Quote:
I'm not saying they will stop dead in their tracks, but Apple appears to be letting certain items wilt on the vine so to speak. They've done it on the Mac so it becomes worrisome and easy to spot. Go open iSync and notice that the copyright on it hasn't even been updated since 2007 as an example. Also what you call new features, others call plugging the holes. Copy/Paste, MMS, and tethering aren't exactly "new."
It is new in the sense that Apple had to invent a new way to implement copy/paste. Reviews have found cop/paste more useful than it is on any phone.
You are comparing the mid 90's to right now. The two periods in Apple's history have nothing in common.
The speaker isn't at the top of anyone's make/break feature list. You are the only one placing this much importance on it.
I've never said it would make or break the phone. That is a strawman argument. I've simply noted it is inferior to other phones. The fact that it has been inferior for three generations means Apple can indeed have blind spots. Does that mean this particular blindspot will be the downfall of the iPhone, no one is claiming that. However the contention is that because Apple has addressed an area, that current weak spots can be ignored because Apple will address it. That isn't necessarily true. It wouldn't be any more true than me saying Blackberry can ignore their lack of decent browser. Apple has iPhone issues to address and competitors are attempting to exploit them.
Quote:
Why did you bother with the iPhone, when you literally have hundreds of other phones to choose from?
I've never claimed I wouldn't consider a different phone. I enjoyed my LG Dare. I've been playing with this iPhone for about two months. I just had one of my friends who upgraded to the Droid send me his Storm because I want to try it out. Hard to imagine but it is almost like I am an electronics geek who hangs out on an electronics forum with other electronics geeks or something like that.
Also I've taken quite a different route than most iPhone owners. I do jailbreak. I run on Tmobile. I have backgrounder installed and just found biteSMS to address my complaints about the iPhone and how slow dealing with messaging happens to be. These solutions keep me happy with my phone but not with the Apple endorsed solution. I only have EDGE coverage but get it for $10 a month. If I lived in one of the areas that is white on the AT&T map and was paying $30 for that service, I'd be pissed as an example. So just because I like Apple products enough to find solutions that work for me doesn't mean the general market will do that. I can enjoy my own iPhone and still want Apple to solve the problem for the mass market.
Quote:
Before you said the notification system didn't work, now you are saying you don't like the alerts. Those are two different problems.
At best it is a kludge. Whenever battery issues crop up it is often about PUSH. Dozens of reviews I have read have noted the hole in Apple's antiquated notifications system and note how it has been passed by others here.
I call something that is a kludge and requires disproportionate effort to get a return on it "not working." If I have to scroll through nine screens to see a number with a plus, that sucks.
Quote:
Surveys and studies are based on perception. They don't actually have to be based on facts.
It is new in the sense that Apple had to invent a new way to implement copy/paste. Reviews have found cop/paste more useful than it is on any phone.
By the reasoning of who? I've seen copy/paste on multiple phones.
Quote:
You are comparing the mid 90's to right now. The two periods in Apple's history have nothing in common.
I'm comparing the last time Apple was on top and took a tumble due to being blinded to another time where that may be happening again. There were plenty of clone makers before Windows 95 was released and Apple did just fine. Suddenly however a tipping point occurred and Apple almost ended up in the dust bin of history. I don't care to see it repeated.
No amount of spin will change the fact that Verizon certainly has a good enough network now with a good enough phone. The iPhone was revolutionary but now it is just slightly better on a terrible network and Apple appears to be getting stranger in some of their decision making. Google is there with open arms as is Verizon to grab whoever is disgruntled and no one else is standing still. Apple is competing alone as they often choose to do. That can be amazing, but at the same time allows very little margin of error.
FYI... Spain's cable companies don't have data caps (unlike Canada's) and sharing copyrighted material through P2P is legal so people do give internet lines a good deal of data use.
Also... 5 GB at 3.6 Mbps speeds costs 25 euros a month here and Vodafone (one of the big companies) has a pretty intensive 7.2 Mbps coverage (in towns as small as 15.000 inhabitants, smaller towns usually are at 3.6 Mbps) and offers 4 GB for 45 euros a month. Here's an online test of the speed of the 7.2down/2up Mbps connection. That's a sustained 5.4 Mbps speed, not the 2-3 Mbps speeds you claim 7.2 Mbps connections can handle.
I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and trust me, when I went to Europe (7 years ago), the first thing that I noticed was that the cellphone industry was a lot more advanced in Europe than in the US (and I guess than Canada too). I gave you examples of Spain because that's where I'm living now, but I could well give you examples of Germany or France and you'd have more or less the same coverage and the same speeds and prices if you'd like me to check them out for you.
It's a shame that you bash European networks for some personal grudge or whatever reason you seem to have against them.
It only means ONE thing --- nobody else within 5 miles from you is using the cell phone network.
Your friend's 21.6 mbps HSPA+ network in Spain gives him 14 mbps, and an identical 21.6 mbps HSPA+ network in Canada will give you 6-7 mbps right now. It's an identical network --- don't need to talk about more advanced or less advanced. Actually, the Canadian networks are better the Europeans because it's not deployed in 2100 MHz, it's on 850 MHz. And that Canadian network will drop in speed down to 4 mbps as more Canadians use the the iphone or the Androids.
Don't you get it? Wireless data is a shared resource --- the speed and capacity goes down by 1/2 if a second person uses the same cell tower.
You are basically an American expat living in Spain where the locals don't use the cell phone network and you are the only person downloading using your laptop. You are quoting speed ratings where you are the only person using the cell tower --- that's not a sign of advanced cell phone technology, it's the exact opposite. I can obtain that 14 mbps speed in Canada if I kill off every single Canadian with a 3G device within 5 miles radius from me.
OK...so even if top speed is rarely reached, Verizon's top speed is capped at 1.4Mb....while in theory, if you have a good signal, AT&T's is at 3.2Mb....going to 7.2Mb and then 14Mb. They just need more towers...which is what they are installing.
Hang on now...Verizon's EVDO network is fully Rev. A, which is capable of 3.1 Mb/s (not MB/s). Thus, where AT&T has their 3.6 Mb/s vs Verizon 3.1 Mb/s there is, in reality, no difference in real-world speeds. Where Verizon quotes 0.6 Mb/s to 1.4 Mb/s they are quoting achievable real-world values.
This Apple Insider article is extremely flawed...if they took even a few minutes to do some research, they'd have to change a number of details about this article. I doubt they've ever tried to use Youtube or another iPhone app on EDGE.
Don't you get it? Wireless data is a shared resource --- the speed and capacity goes down by 1/2 if a second person uses the same cell tower.
So you are saying that in the US and in Canada there aren't enough towers to handle those speeds and because of the saturation of the towers the speed is slower. But I already said that before!
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
You are basically an American expat living in Spain where the locals don't use the cell phone network and you are the only person downloading using your laptop. You are quoting speed ratings where you are the only person using the cell tower --- that's not a sign of advanced cell phone technology, it's the exact opposite. I can obtain that 14 mbps speed in Canada if I kill off every single Canadian with a 3G device within 5 miles radius from me.
Actually no... the spectrum is shared, but one person cannot cope 100% of the spectrum. There needs to be a lot more than 1 person to start saturating it. If your statement were true that would mean that a 7.2 Mbps connection would go at half the speed with 2 people accessing at the same time and half of that if 4 people accessed at the same time. That would be a pretty sh¡tty protocol if it worked like that.
As for 2100 vs 850 MHz... that's another story. In Europe the 2100 MHz spectrum is used. That means that the range is shorter so there's a need for more towers, thus resulting in less people per tower and better speeds with shorter latency.
For rural areas they're opening the 900 MHz spectrum here sense basically almost 90% of the population is already covered by 3G (where as in the US it's barely over 70%).
So you are saying that in the US and in Canada there aren't enough towers to handle those speeds and because of the saturation of the towers the speed is slower. But I already said that before!
Actually no... the spectrum is shared, but one person cannot cope 100% of the spectrum. There needs to be a lot more than 1 person to start saturating it. If your statement were true that would mean that a 7.2 Mbps connection would go at half the speed with 2 people accessing at the same time and half of that if 4 people accessed at the same time. That would be a pretty sh¡tty protocol if it worked like that.
As for 2100 vs 850 MHz... that's another story. In Europe the 2100 MHz spectrum is used. That means that the range is shorter so there's a need for more towers, thus resulting in less people per tower and better speeds with shorter latency.
For rural areas they're opening the 900 MHz spectrum here sense basically almost 90% of the population is already covered by 3G (where as in the US it's barely over 70%).
No, the HSPA+ spec is designed to give you 4 mbps average download speed in a normal enviroment. But nothing prevents you from building a 4 lane highway in the middle of nowhere in the desert in Africa and claim that you can drive 300 km/h because there are no other cars around.
It is not a sign that Spain is somehow more advanced in cell phone networks --- it is the exact opposite.
No, the HSPA+ spec is designed to give you 4 mbps average download speed in a normal enviroment. But nothing prevents you from building a 4 lane highway in the middle of nowhere in the desert in Africa and claim that you can drive 300 km/h because there are no other cars around.
It is not a sign that Spain is somehow more advanced in cell phone networks --- it is the exact opposite.
By Spain you mean Europe. The technology is exactly the same in France, in the UK, in Germany, in Italy, in Portugal, in Slovenia... There are special 2+2 lane autobahs in Germany with no speed limits and they're not in the middle of nowhere. Your example is no use. And talking about Slovenia... I lived there for a year and I was quite amazed with their internet speeds. There's this company called T-2.net that offers 100/10 Mbps for 20 euros a month, 50/50 Mbps for 30 euros a month and 100/100 Mbps for 40 euros a month (obviously through FTTH). FiOS's prices don't seem as good as those it seems.
By Spain you mean Europe. The technology is exactly the same in France, in the UK, in Germany, in Italy, in Portugal, in Slovenia... There are special 2+2 lane autobahs in Germany with no speed limits and they're not in the middle of nowhere. Your example is no use. And talking about Slovenia... I lived there for a year and I was quite amazed with their internet speeds. There's this company called T-2.net that offers 100/10 Mbps for 20 euros a month, 50/50 Mbps for 30 euros a month and 100/100 Mbps for 40 euros a month (obviously through FTTH). FiOS's prices don't seem as good as those it seems.
The technology is the same in Canada where I live --- where the average Canadian will talk 3x more voice minutes than Europeans, where their iphone gets 6 GB data allowance per month.
You are really talking about really old technology in European broadband --- where Europeans are 4 years behind American fiber optics network deployment.
You left the US for so long that you don't have an idea of the advancements in the last few years. Verizon Wireless has more 3G users than the entire Vodafone empire in Europe.
Yesterday (11/13/09) David Pogue lambasted Verizon for overcharging customers over $300 million a month just in data charges and using deceptively designed phones to make it almost impossible to avoid them. Before you leave ATT Wireless, you might want to read it: [URL="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/verizon-how-much-do-you-charge-now/"]
Yesterday (11/13/09) David Pogue lambasted Verizon for overcharging customers over $300 million a month just in data charges and using deceptively designed phones to make it almost impossible to avoid them. Before you leave ATT Wireless, you might want to read it: [URL="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/verizon-how-much-do-you-charge-now/"]
So what? If you are going to get a Nokia unbranded GSM phone, there is going to be a button that points to their app store. Same thing with Blackberry app store, iphone app store....
The technology is the same in Canada where I live --- where the average Canadian will talk 3x more voice minutes than Europeans, where their iphone gets 6 GB data allowance per month.
You are really talking about really old technology in European broadband --- where Europeans are 4 years behind American fiber optics network deployment.
You left the US for so long that you don't have an idea of the advancements in the last few years. Verizon Wireless has more 3G users than the entire Vodafone empire in Europe.
You are just reluctant to think that some places other than Korea or Japan can have better networks than in North America. I go back to the US every summer to visit family. I do keep in touch
In France, Noos-Numericable (the french Comcast) offers 100 Mbps through DOCSIS 3.0 + HD digital TV + unlimited free calls to 53 countries (USA and the EU included) and all of that for 29.90 euros a month. If you take the TV or phone calls out, then it's only 19.90 euros a month.
If you see a need for FTTH there... I'd be pretty confused.
You are just reluctant to think that some places other than Korea or Japan can have better networks than in North America. I go back to the US every summer to visit family. I do keep in touch
In France, Noos-Numericable (the french Comcast) offers 100 Mbps through DOCSIS 3.0 + HD digital TV + unlimited free calls to 53 countries (USA and the EU included) and all of that for 29.90 euros a month. If you take the TV or phone calls out, then it's only 19.90 euros a month.
If you see a need for FTTH there... I'd be pretty confused.
There is a need for FTTH --- Paris is wiring like mad --- only that they are wiring the sewers, not actual buildings.
A lot of the statistics are really not really useful --- aside from Japan and Korea, the scandinavian countries are top of the world in FTTH build-outs. But these countries, if you cover the greater metropolitan Copenhagen area (1.8 million pop) with FTTH, you cover 1/3 of Denmark's population (5.5 million pop) with FTTH.
When you look deeply in the comparision, the US has a much better broadband experience than much of the world.
Samab, Are you saying that for you it is an acceptable business practice to sell a phone that leads you to mistakenly open a data connection and then charge you $1.99 every time you do it, even if you cancel the connection immediately? I don't know what ATT does in a comparable situation since I use an iPhone and have the data plan. I have my complaints about ATT service but this is not one of them. (A week ago a "Specialist in the Office of the President" at ATT told me that I have to reboot my iPhone every time I change towers in order to get voicemail notifications right away. That was in response to a complaint to the FCC.)
Samab, Are you saying that for you it is an acceptable business practice to sell a phone that leads you to mistakenly open a data connection and then charge you $1.99 every time you do it, even if you cancel the connection immediately? I don't know what ATT does in a comparable situation since I use an iPhone and have the data plan. I have my complaints about ATT service but this is not one of them. (A week ago a "Specialist in the Office of the President" at ATT told me that I have to reboot my iPhone every time I change towers in order to get voicemail notifications right away. That was in response to a complaint to the FCC.)
It's not an acceptable business practice --- but it's also not isolated to one particular carrier either. My dad has a Rogers GSM cell phone (in Canada) that you can mistakenly use data all the time. Maybe I can flash it with a generic firmware --- but that's excluding the vast majority of the population who are not geeks like us.
Here's a great Engadget post that systematically destroys Prince's article... and to Engadget's credit, at least they clearly mark it as an editorial...
How many people with smart phones live outside of the blue areas? They look pretty inclusive of the large metros around the country. I can't recall the last time I traveled to any place that isn't in a blue area, but maybe I just don't get out much.
What percentage of the smart phone population is really impacted by this red/blue thing? Serious question, and I am sure no one really knows.
As posted before, if you live work and play in blue areas that meet your needs, the size of the red area is irrelevant. It is zero impact on my life if Verizon has 3G coverage in some cornfields in Nebraska...
I think you hit on an important thing that most seem to miss.
I have no data to back this up other than my personal experience. It appears to me that most people who use AT&T are business type people, ones who travel lots, especially over seas. On the other hand, Most VZ customers seem to be your average Joe who do not go far outside their home area and do not use much of the advance services. because of this I think AT&T pick and choose where to place their network, it was obviously they did not blanket the US. Which calls into question their TV add which is more Bars in More Places. kind had to make that claim when they did not blanket the US. Because have more Bars on a smart phone without data does not work.
It would be interesting to see the demographic break down of the people on VZ and AT&T.
I think you hit on an important thing that most seem to miss.
I have no data to back this up other than my personal experience. It appears to me that most people who use AT&T are business type people, ones who travel lots, especially over seas. On the other hand, Most VZ customers seem to be your average Joe who do not go far outside their home area and do not use much of the advance services. because of this I think AT&T pick and choose where to place their network, it was obviously they did not blanket the US. Which calls into question their TV add which is more Bars in More Places. kind had to make that claim when they did not blanket the US. Because have more Bars on a smart phone without data does not work.
It would be interesting to see the demographic break down of the people on VZ and AT&T.
Wrong, AT&T Wireless is primarily stronger in southern US (where its landline baby bell resides) --- American Idol winners have been mostly country music type singers because AT&T Wireless customers get to vote on American Idol. And these people in the Southern USA don't travel a lot (especially overseas).
Verizon Wireless is primarily stronger in north eastern US (where its landline baby bell resides) --- people in New York, Boston, Washington DC --- they are the people who travel overseas.
I doubt either of these generalizations are true at this point. This is ten years later, and after so many mergers mobile phone usage is not regional anymore.
Anecdotally, the far majority of my friends who live in the south use Sprint, because its cheap. Here in NYC, its pretty evenly divided between AT&T and Verizon. But then, many people have iPhone's and Blackberry Bold's so I'm being pretty generous to Verizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Wrong, AT&T Wireless is primarily stronger in southern US (where its landline baby bell resides) --- American Idol winners have been mostly country music type singers because AT&T Wireless customers get to vote on American Idol. And these people in the Southern USA don't travel a lot (especially overseas).
Verizon Wireless is primarily stronger in north eastern US (where its landline baby bell resides) --- people in New York, Boston, Washington DC --- they are the people who travel overseas.
Comments
...you'll see that they report the two speed numbers shown - 600 kbps and 1.4 Mbps - on the graph as the upper and lower typical speeds based on actual download transfers. As a prior poster pointed out, the "ideal" or signaling rate speed of EV-DO Rev A is 3.1 Mbps. Verizon doesn't report signaling rates. So, where do the numbers in the AT&T bar come from? They max "ideal" rate shown is actually the signaling rate of 3.6 Mbps. I can't find where AT&T advertises a range of "typical" speeds achieved based on actual downloads. They simply advertise their signaling rate: http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/wh...gy/3g-umts.jsp
As I hope everyone is aware, signaling rate does not represent achievable download speeds - even in ideal circumstances - due to wireless network overhead.
In other words the graph shows signaling rates for AT&T against actual download speeds for Verizon as if they're comparable terms. Its a patently false comparison with no backup or explanation of sources for their reported "typical" and "ideal" numbers on the AT&T side.
Its funny how AI calls shenanigans on VZW for presenting unlike coverage types in their advertising and then, in AI's refutation article, pulls the same shenanigan with speeds. In other words, AI is presenting information no more accurate than you'd expect from advertising.
I'll be happy to read the review where the iPhone speakerphone is praised. Everyone I have read notes it is subpar or politely says it is "too soft." If I'm being authoritative, it is because I haven't read a source contrary to the contention. Feel free to produce it.
The speaker isn't at the top of anyone's make/break feature list. You are the only one placing this much importance on it.
I know I do as one of those 50+ million. There are only so many things you can fix with software hacks and jailbreaking.
Why did you bother with the iPhone, when you literally have hundreds of other phones to choose from?
All of them because the notification system is all wrong. I don't want little read numbers spread across nine screens or something popping up to be dismissed without the ability to address it unless I close what I am presently doing and go to the app that handles it.
Before you said the notification system didn't work, now you are saying you don't like the alerts. Those are two different problems.
Actually surveys and studies have put it in the crapper as well.
Surveys and studies are based on perception. They don't actually have to be based on facts.
I'm not saying they will stop dead in their tracks, but Apple appears to be letting certain items wilt on the vine so to speak. They've done it on the Mac so it becomes worrisome and easy to spot. Go open iSync and notice that the copyright on it hasn't even been updated since 2007 as an example. Also what you call new features, others call plugging the holes. Copy/Paste, MMS, and tethering aren't exactly "new."
It is new in the sense that Apple had to invent a new way to implement copy/paste. Reviews have found cop/paste more useful than it is on any phone.
You are comparing the mid 90's to right now. The two periods in Apple's history have nothing in common.
The speaker isn't at the top of anyone's make/break feature list. You are the only one placing this much importance on it.
I've never said it would make or break the phone. That is a strawman argument. I've simply noted it is inferior to other phones. The fact that it has been inferior for three generations means Apple can indeed have blind spots. Does that mean this particular blindspot will be the downfall of the iPhone, no one is claiming that. However the contention is that because Apple has addressed an area, that current weak spots can be ignored because Apple will address it. That isn't necessarily true. It wouldn't be any more true than me saying Blackberry can ignore their lack of decent browser. Apple has iPhone issues to address and competitors are attempting to exploit them.
Why did you bother with the iPhone, when you literally have hundreds of other phones to choose from?
I've never claimed I wouldn't consider a different phone. I enjoyed my LG Dare. I've been playing with this iPhone for about two months. I just had one of my friends who upgraded to the Droid send me his Storm because I want to try it out. Hard to imagine but it is almost like I am an electronics geek who hangs out on an electronics forum with other electronics geeks or something like that.
Also I've taken quite a different route than most iPhone owners. I do jailbreak. I run on Tmobile. I have backgrounder installed and just found biteSMS to address my complaints about the iPhone and how slow dealing with messaging happens to be. These solutions keep me happy with my phone but not with the Apple endorsed solution. I only have EDGE coverage but get it for $10 a month. If I lived in one of the areas that is white on the AT&T map and was paying $30 for that service, I'd be pissed as an example. So just because I like Apple products enough to find solutions that work for me doesn't mean the general market will do that. I can enjoy my own iPhone and still want Apple to solve the problem for the mass market.
Before you said the notification system didn't work, now you are saying you don't like the alerts. Those are two different problems.
At best it is a kludge. Whenever battery issues crop up it is often about PUSH. Dozens of reviews I have read have noted the hole in Apple's antiquated notifications system and note how it has been passed by others here.
Here is an example comparing Android and iPhone from the perspective of an iPhone user. - iPhoneBlog
Phonedog goes into it here.
I call something that is a kludge and requires disproportionate effort to get a return on it "not working." If I have to scroll through nine screens to see a number with a plus, that sucks.
Surveys and studies are based on perception. They don't actually have to be based on facts.
Surveys yes, but studies no. I posted a link to a study where they sample each network multiple times in multiple cities. - A Day with 3G.
That wasn't about perception.
It is new in the sense that Apple had to invent a new way to implement copy/paste. Reviews have found cop/paste more useful than it is on any phone.
By the reasoning of who? I've seen copy/paste on multiple phones.
You are comparing the mid 90's to right now. The two periods in Apple's history have nothing in common.
I'm comparing the last time Apple was on top and took a tumble due to being blinded to another time where that may be happening again. There were plenty of clone makers before Windows 95 was released and Apple did just fine. Suddenly however a tipping point occurred and Apple almost ended up in the dust bin of history. I don't care to see it repeated.
I see articles like this and it worries me.
My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple?s policies.
I see apps featured in iPhone commercials moving to Android.
I read articles like this one. - Rogue Amoeba leaves.
No amount of spin will change the fact that Verizon certainly has a good enough network now with a good enough phone. The iPhone was revolutionary but now it is just slightly better on a terrible network and Apple appears to be getting stranger in some of their decision making. Google is there with open arms as is Verizon to grab whoever is disgruntled and no one else is standing still. Apple is competing alone as they often choose to do. That can be amazing, but at the same time allows very little margin of error.
FYI... Spain's cable companies don't have data caps (unlike Canada's) and sharing copyrighted material through P2P is legal so people do give internet lines a good deal of data use.
Also... 5 GB at 3.6 Mbps speeds costs 25 euros a month here and Vodafone (one of the big companies) has a pretty intensive 7.2 Mbps coverage (in towns as small as 15.000 inhabitants, smaller towns usually are at 3.6 Mbps) and offers 4 GB for 45 euros a month. Here's an online test of the speed of the 7.2down/2up Mbps connection. That's a sustained 5.4 Mbps speed, not the 2-3 Mbps speeds you claim 7.2 Mbps connections can handle.
I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and trust me, when I went to Europe (7 years ago), the first thing that I noticed was that the cellphone industry was a lot more advanced in Europe than in the US (and I guess than Canada too). I gave you examples of Spain because that's where I'm living now, but I could well give you examples of Germany or France and you'd have more or less the same coverage and the same speeds and prices if you'd like me to check them out for you.
It's a shame that you bash European networks for some personal grudge or whatever reason you seem to have against them.
It only means ONE thing --- nobody else within 5 miles from you is using the cell phone network.
Your friend's 21.6 mbps HSPA+ network in Spain gives him 14 mbps, and an identical 21.6 mbps HSPA+ network in Canada will give you 6-7 mbps right now. It's an identical network --- don't need to talk about more advanced or less advanced. Actually, the Canadian networks are better the Europeans because it's not deployed in 2100 MHz, it's on 850 MHz. And that Canadian network will drop in speed down to 4 mbps as more Canadians use the the iphone or the Androids.
Don't you get it? Wireless data is a shared resource --- the speed and capacity goes down by 1/2 if a second person uses the same cell tower.
You are basically an American expat living in Spain where the locals don't use the cell phone network and you are the only person downloading using your laptop. You are quoting speed ratings where you are the only person using the cell tower --- that's not a sign of advanced cell phone technology, it's the exact opposite. I can obtain that 14 mbps speed in Canada if I kill off every single Canadian with a 3G device within 5 miles radius from me.
Thanks for the clarification.
OK...so even if top speed is rarely reached, Verizon's top speed is capped at 1.4Mb....while in theory, if you have a good signal, AT&T's is at 3.2Mb....going to 7.2Mb and then 14Mb. They just need more towers...which is what they are installing.
Hang on now...Verizon's EVDO network is fully Rev. A, which is capable of 3.1 Mb/s (not MB/s). Thus, where AT&T has their 3.6 Mb/s vs Verizon 3.1 Mb/s there is, in reality, no difference in real-world speeds. Where Verizon quotes 0.6 Mb/s to 1.4 Mb/s they are quoting achievable real-world values.
This Apple Insider article is extremely flawed...if they took even a few minutes to do some research, they'd have to change a number of details about this article. I doubt they've ever tried to use Youtube or another iPhone app on EDGE.
Don't you get it? Wireless data is a shared resource --- the speed and capacity goes down by 1/2 if a second person uses the same cell tower.
So you are saying that in the US and in Canada there aren't enough towers to handle those speeds and because of the saturation of the towers the speed is slower. But I already said that before!
You are basically an American expat living in Spain where the locals don't use the cell phone network and you are the only person downloading using your laptop. You are quoting speed ratings where you are the only person using the cell tower --- that's not a sign of advanced cell phone technology, it's the exact opposite. I can obtain that 14 mbps speed in Canada if I kill off every single Canadian with a 3G device within 5 miles radius from me.
Actually no... the spectrum is shared, but one person cannot cope 100% of the spectrum. There needs to be a lot more than 1 person to start saturating it. If your statement were true that would mean that a 7.2 Mbps connection would go at half the speed with 2 people accessing at the same time and half of that if 4 people accessed at the same time. That would be a pretty sh¡tty protocol if it worked like that.
As for 2100 vs 850 MHz... that's another story. In Europe the 2100 MHz spectrum is used. That means that the range is shorter so there's a need for more towers, thus resulting in less people per tower and better speeds with shorter latency.
For rural areas they're opening the 900 MHz spectrum here sense basically almost 90% of the population is already covered by 3G (where as in the US it's barely over 70%).
So you are saying that in the US and in Canada there aren't enough towers to handle those speeds and because of the saturation of the towers the speed is slower. But I already said that before!
Actually no... the spectrum is shared, but one person cannot cope 100% of the spectrum. There needs to be a lot more than 1 person to start saturating it. If your statement were true that would mean that a 7.2 Mbps connection would go at half the speed with 2 people accessing at the same time and half of that if 4 people accessed at the same time. That would be a pretty sh¡tty protocol if it worked like that.
As for 2100 vs 850 MHz... that's another story. In Europe the 2100 MHz spectrum is used. That means that the range is shorter so there's a need for more towers, thus resulting in less people per tower and better speeds with shorter latency.
For rural areas they're opening the 900 MHz spectrum here sense basically almost 90% of the population is already covered by 3G (where as in the US it's barely over 70%).
No, the HSPA+ spec is designed to give you 4 mbps average download speed in a normal enviroment. But nothing prevents you from building a 4 lane highway in the middle of nowhere in the desert in Africa and claim that you can drive 300 km/h because there are no other cars around.
It is not a sign that Spain is somehow more advanced in cell phone networks --- it is the exact opposite.
No, the HSPA+ spec is designed to give you 4 mbps average download speed in a normal enviroment. But nothing prevents you from building a 4 lane highway in the middle of nowhere in the desert in Africa and claim that you can drive 300 km/h because there are no other cars around.
It is not a sign that Spain is somehow more advanced in cell phone networks --- it is the exact opposite.
By Spain you mean Europe. The technology is exactly the same in France, in the UK, in Germany, in Italy, in Portugal, in Slovenia... There are special 2+2 lane autobahs in Germany with no speed limits and they're not in the middle of nowhere. Your example is no use. And talking about Slovenia... I lived there for a year and I was quite amazed with their internet speeds. There's this company called T-2.net that offers 100/10 Mbps for 20 euros a month, 50/50 Mbps for 30 euros a month and 100/100 Mbps for 40 euros a month (obviously through FTTH). FiOS's prices don't seem as good as those it seems.
By Spain you mean Europe. The technology is exactly the same in France, in the UK, in Germany, in Italy, in Portugal, in Slovenia... There are special 2+2 lane autobahs in Germany with no speed limits and they're not in the middle of nowhere. Your example is no use. And talking about Slovenia... I lived there for a year and I was quite amazed with their internet speeds. There's this company called T-2.net that offers 100/10 Mbps for 20 euros a month, 50/50 Mbps for 30 euros a month and 100/100 Mbps for 40 euros a month (obviously through FTTH). FiOS's prices don't seem as good as those it seems.
The technology is the same in Canada where I live --- where the average Canadian will talk 3x more voice minutes than Europeans, where their iphone gets 6 GB data allowance per month.
You are really talking about really old technology in European broadband --- where Europeans are 4 years behind American fiber optics network deployment.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028
You left the US for so long that you don't have an idea of the advancements in the last few years. Verizon Wireless has more 3G users than the entire Vodafone empire in Europe.
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/1...its-not-calls/
Yesterday (11/13/09) David Pogue lambasted Verizon for overcharging customers over $300 million a month just in data charges and using deceptively designed phones to make it almost impossible to avoid them. Before you leave ATT Wireless, you might want to read it: [URL="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/verizon-how-much-do-you-charge-now/"]
So what? If you are going to get a Nokia unbranded GSM phone, there is going to be a button that points to their app store. Same thing with Blackberry app store, iphone app store....
The technology is the same in Canada where I live --- where the average Canadian will talk 3x more voice minutes than Europeans, where their iphone gets 6 GB data allowance per month.
You are really talking about really old technology in European broadband --- where Europeans are 4 years behind American fiber optics network deployment.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028
You left the US for so long that you don't have an idea of the advancements in the last few years. Verizon Wireless has more 3G users than the entire Vodafone empire in Europe.
You are just reluctant to think that some places other than Korea or Japan can have better networks than in North America. I go back to the US every summer to visit family. I do keep in touch
In France, Noos-Numericable (the french Comcast) offers 100 Mbps through DOCSIS 3.0 + HD digital TV + unlimited free calls to 53 countries (USA and the EU included) and all of that for 29.90 euros a month. If you take the TV or phone calls out, then it's only 19.90 euros a month.
If you see a need for FTTH there... I'd be pretty confused.
You are just reluctant to think that some places other than Korea or Japan can have better networks than in North America. I go back to the US every summer to visit family. I do keep in touch
In France, Noos-Numericable (the french Comcast) offers 100 Mbps through DOCSIS 3.0 + HD digital TV + unlimited free calls to 53 countries (USA and the EU included) and all of that for 29.90 euros a month. If you take the TV or phone calls out, then it's only 19.90 euros a month.
If you see a need for FTTH there... I'd be pretty confused.
There is a need for FTTH --- Paris is wiring like mad --- only that they are wiring the sewers, not actual buildings.
A lot of the statistics are really not really useful --- aside from Japan and Korea, the scandinavian countries are top of the world in FTTH build-outs. But these countries, if you cover the greater metropolitan Copenhagen area (1.8 million pop) with FTTH, you cover 1/3 of Denmark's population (5.5 million pop) with FTTH.
When you look deeply in the comparision, the US has a much better broadband experience than much of the world.
Samab, Are you saying that for you it is an acceptable business practice to sell a phone that leads you to mistakenly open a data connection and then charge you $1.99 every time you do it, even if you cancel the connection immediately? I don't know what ATT does in a comparable situation since I use an iPhone and have the data plan. I have my complaints about ATT service but this is not one of them. (A week ago a "Specialist in the Office of the President" at ATT told me that I have to reboot my iPhone every time I change towers in order to get voicemail notifications right away. That was in response to a complaint to the FCC.)
It's not an acceptable business practice --- but it's also not isolated to one particular carrier either. My dad has a Rogers GSM cell phone (in Canada) that you can mistakenly use data all the time. Maybe I can flash it with a generic firmware --- but that's excluding the vast majority of the population who are not geeks like us.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/13/e...its-not-calls/
How many people with smart phones live outside of the blue areas? They look pretty inclusive of the large metros around the country. I can't recall the last time I traveled to any place that isn't in a blue area, but maybe I just don't get out much.
What percentage of the smart phone population is really impacted by this red/blue thing? Serious question, and I am sure no one really knows.
As posted before, if you live work and play in blue areas that meet your needs, the size of the red area is irrelevant. It is zero impact on my life if Verizon has 3G coverage in some cornfields in Nebraska...
I think you hit on an important thing that most seem to miss.
I have no data to back this up other than my personal experience. It appears to me that most people who use AT&T are business type people, ones who travel lots, especially over seas. On the other hand, Most VZ customers seem to be your average Joe who do not go far outside their home area and do not use much of the advance services. because of this I think AT&T pick and choose where to place their network, it was obviously they did not blanket the US. Which calls into question their TV add which is more Bars in More Places. kind had to make that claim when they did not blanket the US. Because have more Bars on a smart phone without data does not work.
It would be interesting to see the demographic break down of the people on VZ and AT&T.
I think you hit on an important thing that most seem to miss.
I have no data to back this up other than my personal experience. It appears to me that most people who use AT&T are business type people, ones who travel lots, especially over seas. On the other hand, Most VZ customers seem to be your average Joe who do not go far outside their home area and do not use much of the advance services. because of this I think AT&T pick and choose where to place their network, it was obviously they did not blanket the US. Which calls into question their TV add which is more Bars in More Places. kind had to make that claim when they did not blanket the US. Because have more Bars on a smart phone without data does not work.
It would be interesting to see the demographic break down of the people on VZ and AT&T.
Wrong, AT&T Wireless is primarily stronger in southern US (where its landline baby bell resides) --- American Idol winners have been mostly country music type singers because AT&T Wireless customers get to vote on American Idol. And these people in the Southern USA don't travel a lot (especially overseas).
Verizon Wireless is primarily stronger in north eastern US (where its landline baby bell resides) --- people in New York, Boston, Washington DC --- they are the people who travel overseas.
Anecdotally, the far majority of my friends who live in the south use Sprint, because its cheap. Here in NYC, its pretty evenly divided between AT&T and Verizon. But then, many people have iPhone's and Blackberry Bold's so I'm being pretty generous to Verizon.
Wrong, AT&T Wireless is primarily stronger in southern US (where its landline baby bell resides) --- American Idol winners have been mostly country music type singers because AT&T Wireless customers get to vote on American Idol. And these people in the Southern USA don't travel a lot (especially overseas).
Verizon Wireless is primarily stronger in north eastern US (where its landline baby bell resides) --- people in New York, Boston, Washington DC --- they are the people who travel overseas.