I had Verizon for 5 plus years and switched to AT&T and the iphone last year.
I have not noticed a difference in service at all! I have the same coverage and the same call quality as when I was with verizon.
I think AT&T needs to come out with their own advertising comapring maybe something like all the swichers from Verizon have an APP for that...to the tune of over 100,000 apps to be exact! Oh yeah and you don't have the #1 smartphone in theworld either...... there no map for that!
They should try to hit back instead of being seen as a cry baby!
A very good and positve response ... I'm up for that.
AT&T makes the assertion that you can talk and surf the web & do emails at the same time... on what phone? The iPhone cannot do multiple apps (and neither can the Windows Mobile devices), and surfing and emailing are separate apps, so you have to close one to do the other. And it's well known that the Android phones (Verizon's Droid & Droid Eris) are multitasking, and support multiple apps running at the same time. So the comparison is moot... I'm not saying that any Verizon phone is an iPhone killer (yet) but the Android devices certainly are more capable than the iPhone, and the fact is that Verizon has broader 3G coverage than AT&T... if they want to get into a pissing contest by including EDGE, they better remember that EVDO Rev A blowd the doors off of EDGE, so if Verizon starts comparing their EVDI coverage to AT&T's EDGE coverage, Verizon will win. Oh, full disclosure: I am a Sprint customer (seriously) and, while PC World has said Sprint has the most reliable (not biggest, not fastest), I'm kind of surprised that Sprint doesn't brag more about that... I guess it's a customer's choice as to what's more important: Coverage, speed or reliability.
Did you read the same article that the rest of us read (above)? AT&Ts 3G covers 75% of the US population...where we live and work. I wouldn't call that very little. Yeah, it's not 100%.....but I really don't care if AT&T covers some remote mountain valley in the middle of Montana or not.
If you don't like the coverage where you live, hey, you have a choice...go get a DROID. Evidently, based on sales and churn rates at AT&T, most customers are happy.
AT&T makes the assertion that you can talk and surf the web & do emails at the same time... on what phone?.
I guess you only see what you want to see. The actual quote is as follows: Unlike Verizon, AT&T's 3G network lets wireless customers simultaneously talk and surf the web or do e-mail.
Note the use of the word .. or. Please read all of the words before complaining , otherwise we may mistake you for TechDud!
AT&T makes the assertion that you can talk and surf the web & do emails at the same time... on what phone? The iPhone cannot do multiple apps (and neither can the Windows Mobile devices), and surfing and emailing are separate apps, so you have to close one to do the other. And it's well known that the Android phones (Verizon's Droid & Droid Eris) are multitasking, and support multiple apps running at the same time. So the comparison is moot... I'm not saying that any Verizon phone is an iPhone killer (yet) but the Android devices certainly are more capable than the iPhone, and the fact is that Verizon has broader 3G coverage than AT&T... if they want to get into a pissing contest by including EDGE, they better remember that EVDO Rev A blowd the doors off of EDGE, so if Verizon starts comparing their EVDI coverage to AT&T's EDGE coverage, Verizon will win. Oh, full disclosure: I am a Sprint customer (seriously) and, while PC World has said Sprint has the most reliable (not biggest, not fastest), I'm kind of surprised that Sprint doesn't brag more about that... I guess it's a customer's choice as to what's more important: Coverage, speed or reliability.
You are 100% incorrect. Just yesterday, I was using the new Cisco WEBEX APP where I was able to dial into a conference call (via a phone call) and at the same time utilize this great App to share applications and presentations (Powerpoints) live over the internet with everyone on the call.
Get your facts straight before you share them. You obviously do not have an iPhone (Sprint customer)
DROID or any other phone on Verizon's CDMA Network can not support this dual Voice/Data access. This is a killer business feature....that Verizon can not support. This is one reason why they stated that AT&T has twice as many smart phones as anyone else.
You are 100% incorrect. Just yesterday, I was using the new Cisco WEBEX APP where I was able to dial into a conference call (via a phone call) and at the same time utilize this great App to share applications and presentations (Powerpoints) live over the internet with everyone on the call.
Get your facts straight before you share them. You obviously do not have an iPhone (Sprint customer)
DROID or any other phone on Verizon's CDMA Network can not support this dual Voice/Data access. This is a killer business feature....that Verizon can not support. This is one reason why they stated that AT&T has twice as many smart phones as anyone else.
No. The "Presenter" on the conference call (who was probably at his PC/MAC), shared his desktop to all the remote participants using this iPhone App. Check out this App at the App Store. Search for CISCO WEBEX. It just came out on 11/2.
How about Verizon just update their ad to show both 2G and 3G coverage for AT&T in different colors. I am sure that would satisfy someone.
Let me guess, you're not in marketing or advertising, are you?
Advertising has never been about telling the whole truth. It's about focusing on your strengths. Next you are going to suggest that Verizon include in their ads that their devices can't do simultaneous voice and data!
ATT shouldn't be filing lawsuits or sending letters to their customers. They should be putting together their own ads to counter Verizon's. Right now they are letting Verizon use ATT's marketing against them (they are using ATTs own coverage map). It's up to ATT to promote their own view of their coverage map. And then they can also call out their other strengths (ie, simultaneous voice/data). The fact that they have not done so suggests to me that they know it would be a tough sell because their network isn't as strong as Verizons. (But hey, that didn't stop them from advertising "fewest dropped calls" awhile back ... talk about false advertising!)
Edit: And perhaps ATT should be forced to show their 3G coverage map in their own ads when they advertise "fastest 3G network". How is that not misleading advertising to suggest that you'll have the fastest network without specifying where exactly you can get those speeds?
No. The "Presenter" on the conference call (who was probably at his PC/MAC), shared his desktop to all the remote participants using this iPhone App. Check out this App at the App Store. Search for CISCO WEBEX. It just came out on 11/2.
I am familiar with the Webex...we use it here at work.
But from your post it made it seem you were on your iPhone doing using Powerpoint.
Verizon is mostly telling the truth about 3G coverage, but they are sending this message out to people who don't understand what 3G is in the first place. They are leaving the impression that AT&T's 3G coverage is all of AT&T's coverage. That impression is false and damaging to AT&T's business.
AT&T has no issues praising its own 3G coverage to these allegedly ignorant viewers. If what you're saying is true, then AT&T's "fastest 3G" ads should be required to disclose that AT&T also has EDGE. Which, by the way, is not-so-fast, and covers the majority of AT&T's geographical coverage area. Otherwise, by omission, it leaves the false and misleading impression that AT&T's entire network is the "fastest 3G".
Why is it solely Verizon's responsibility to exhaustively educate viewers in their marketing? Other than because AT&T really does not have an answer to Verizon's claim that their 3G has more coverage area, which for a mobile device may be important to some people?
My service drops calls constantly. AT&T should be on their toes because the moment Verizon gets a Iphone, I will pay whatever the cancellation cost is.
I am glad Verizon got their attention.
That's what I did about a year before the iPhone came out. Paid ATT the $150 to get out of my contract. And then to add insult to injury, they tried to add sales tax to the early termination fee! I got it removed, but only after many arguments with their customer service and getting my state's revenue department involved. It was only 10 bucks, but it was the principle of it. It was bad enough I had to pay the $150 because I feel I should have been able to sue them for breach of contract due to their utter failure to deliver the services promised. Dropped calls, failure to connect calls, never delivering text messages, etc, are NOT just due to the iPhone. ATT had these problems long before the iPhone came along.
AT&T does praise the speed of its own 3G network, but it has never directly compared the speed of its network against Verizon. Claiming to have the fastest 3G network does not automatically leave the impression that 3G covers the entire nation.
If AT&T made a map that showed that its fastest 3G area was larger than Verizon's fastest 3G area, then AT&T would be doing the same thing that Verizon is doing.
Its not Verizon's sole responsibility to educate ignorant consumers. At the same time Verizon cannot use consumer ignorance to give the impression that AT&T's network only covers small portions of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb
AT&T has no issues praising its own 3G coverage to these allegedly ignorant viewers. If what you're saying is true, then AT&T's "fastest 3G" ads should be required to disclose that AT&T also has EDGE. Which, by the way, is not-so-fast, and covers the majority of AT&T's geographical coverage area. Otherwise, by omission, it leaves the false and misleading impression that AT&T's entire network is the "fastest 3G".
Why is it solely Verizon's responsibility to exhaustively educate viewers in their marketing? Other than because AT&T really does not have an answer to Verizon's claim that their 3G has more coverage area, which for a mobile device may be important to some people?
I don't like any of the mobile providers. That said, my experience with AT&T has been great. In the dark days pre iPhone I used Verizon. In my area, North of Boston, their service was poor. No bars in many places including my home. They hit me with fees from nowhere, and their support was lousy. I used Sprint before Verizon, just as bad.
I get excellent connections with AT&T, NO dropped calls, and the one time I called them for support I was treated courteously and the rep was knowledgeable.
I might not feel this way if I lived in NYC or LA.
Verizon will have to change their ways when/if they get the iPhone.
Did you read the same article that the rest of us read (above)? AT&Ts 3G covers 75% of the US population...where we live and work. I wouldn't call that very little. Yeah, it's not 100%.....but I really don't care if AT&T covers some remote mountain valley in the middle of Montana or not.
I have two WiFi routers that provide coverage where I live and work, and it totally blows AT&T's 3G out of the water.
The problem is when I'm between those two areas, and anywhere else for that matter. Sound familiar? Is there a map for that?
Most people don't completely live their lives either in a square mile block of NYC, or in a hut at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I don't see any value to arguing extremes when most people live somewhere between the opposite ends...
I can certainly understand AT&T stand point in the law suit. Not many people in general public know what 3G is. If those people simply look at the map, they may very well assume no service coverage in the "blank area".
Ads are meant to cover the truth but not the whole truth. That is what marketing is. Like dating, you play up your good qualities while hiding your bad ones. Verizon doesn?t advertise that their 3G is considerably slower than AT&T?s when showing they have more coverage just as AT&T doesn?t advertise they have less coverage when they state how it?s faster.
A lot of this is AT&T?s fault anyway. The average customer didn?t care about ?3G? until the iPhone 3G came along. Then AT&T started playing it up but choosing to use the simplistic marketing term without defining it in the least bit despite their primary rival?s ?3G? being a completely different network architecture that is colloquially defined as such. Verizon has taken advantage of this situation brilliantly and AT&T has bitched like an AI troll instead of out maneuvering their competition.
Then again, they might know they can?t win but are hoping this gets free press to help understand the differences. That would be a decent short term tactic while you get some ads made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
Oh well? AT&T says they're the fastest 3g network. You don't see Sprint running up proving them wrong.
You make a good point. If using the ?3G? nomenclature is bad form because it?s confusing then AT&T needs to stop those ads if print?s ?4G? WiMAX is the fastest.
Verizon is mostly telling the truth about 3G coverage, but they are sending this message out to people who don't understand what 3G is in the first place. They are leaving the impression that AT&T's 3G coverage is all of AT&T's coverage. That impression is false and damaging to AT&T's business.
But these are the same people ATT is advertising to that they have the fastest 3G network. So ATT has an expectation that people know what that means. Or are they implying that their network is faster everywhere you'd go (because like Verizon they aren't pointing out their their network isn't all 3G) and are therefore lying in their ads.
Bottom line, ATT is "lying" to people with that ad just as much as Verizon is "lying" with their ad. If ATT isn't highlighting the differences between 3G and the rest of their network in their "fastest 3G" ads, why should Verizon be expected to in their "greater 3G coverage" ads?
I can certainly understand AT&T stand point in the law suit. Not many people in general public know what 3G is. If those people simply look at the map, they may very well assume no service coverage in the "blank area".
You're talking about the same people who buy an "iPhone 3G" assuming they will get 3g service everywhere. There isn't a little * next to the name with a disclaimer on the box.
AT&T says it has the fastest 3G network. That is true where AT&T offers HSPA. AT&T doesn't provide any information that disparages the speed of Verizon's network or potentially cause any damage to its business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
But these are the same people ATT is advertising to that they have the fastest 3G network. So ATT has an expectation that people know what that means. Or are they implying that their network is faster everywhere you'd go (because like Verizon they aren't pointing out their their network isn't all 3G) and are therefore lying in their ads.
Bottom line, ATT is "lying" to people with that ad just as much as Verizon is "lying" with their ad. If ATT isn't highlighting the differences between 3G and the rest of their network in their "fastest 3G" ads, why should Verizon be expected to in their "greater 3G coverage" ads?
Comments
No fool here.
Like most of your posts, that's up for debate.
I had Verizon for 5 plus years and switched to AT&T and the iphone last year.
I have not noticed a difference in service at all! I have the same coverage and the same call quality as when I was with verizon.
I think AT&T needs to come out with their own advertising comapring maybe something like all the swichers from Verizon have an APP for that...to the tune of over 100,000 apps to be exact! Oh yeah and you don't have the #1 smartphone in theworld either...... there no map for that!
They should try to hit back instead of being seen as a cry baby!
A very good and positve response ... I'm up for that.
AT&T's network has very little 3G coverage.
Did you read the same article that the rest of us read (above)? AT&Ts 3G covers 75% of the US population...where we live and work. I wouldn't call that very little. Yeah, it's not 100%.....but I really don't care if AT&T covers some remote mountain valley in the middle of Montana or not.
If you don't like the coverage where you live, hey, you have a choice...go get a DROID. Evidently, based on sales and churn rates at AT&T, most customers are happy.
AT&T makes the assertion that you can talk and surf the web & do emails at the same time... on what phone?.
I guess you only see what you want to see. The actual quote is as follows: Unlike Verizon, AT&T's 3G network lets wireless customers simultaneously talk and surf the web or do e-mail.
Note the use of the word .. or. Please read all of the words before complaining , otherwise we may mistake you for TechDud!
AT&T makes the assertion that you can talk and surf the web & do emails at the same time... on what phone? The iPhone cannot do multiple apps (and neither can the Windows Mobile devices), and surfing and emailing are separate apps, so you have to close one to do the other. And it's well known that the Android phones (Verizon's Droid & Droid Eris) are multitasking, and support multiple apps running at the same time. So the comparison is moot... I'm not saying that any Verizon phone is an iPhone killer (yet) but the Android devices certainly are more capable than the iPhone, and the fact is that Verizon has broader 3G coverage than AT&T... if they want to get into a pissing contest by including EDGE, they better remember that EVDO Rev A blowd the doors off of EDGE, so if Verizon starts comparing their EVDI coverage to AT&T's EDGE coverage, Verizon will win. Oh, full disclosure: I am a Sprint customer (seriously) and, while PC World has said Sprint has the most reliable (not biggest, not fastest), I'm kind of surprised that Sprint doesn't brag more about that... I guess it's a customer's choice as to what's more important: Coverage, speed or reliability.
You are 100% incorrect. Just yesterday, I was using the new Cisco WEBEX APP where I was able to dial into a conference call (via a phone call) and at the same time utilize this great App to share applications and presentations (Powerpoints) live over the internet with everyone on the call.
Get your facts straight before you share them. You obviously do not have an iPhone (Sprint customer)
DROID or any other phone on Verizon's CDMA Network can not support this dual Voice/Data access. This is a killer business feature....that Verizon can not support. This is one reason why they stated that AT&T has twice as many smart phones as anyone else.
You are 100% incorrect. Just yesterday, I was using the new Cisco WEBEX APP where I was able to dial into a conference call (via a phone call) and at the same time utilize this great App to share applications and presentations (Powerpoints) live over the internet with everyone on the call.
Get your facts straight before you share them. You obviously do not have an iPhone (Sprint customer)
DROID or any other phone on Verizon's CDMA Network can not support this dual Voice/Data access. This is a killer business feature....that Verizon can not support. This is one reason why they stated that AT&T has twice as many smart phones as anyone else.
Were you on a AT&T iPhone using MS Powerpoint?
I didn 't think that was possible.........
Were you on a AT&T iPhone using MS Powerpoint?
I didn 't think that was possible.........
No. The "Presenter" on the conference call (who was probably at his PC/MAC), shared his desktop to all the remote participants using this iPhone App. Check out this App at the App Store. Search for CISCO WEBEX. It just came out on 11/2.
How about Verizon just update their ad to show both 2G and 3G coverage for AT&T in different colors. I am sure that would satisfy someone.
Let me guess, you're not in marketing or advertising, are you?
Advertising has never been about telling the whole truth. It's about focusing on your strengths. Next you are going to suggest that Verizon include in their ads that their devices can't do simultaneous voice and data!
ATT shouldn't be filing lawsuits or sending letters to their customers. They should be putting together their own ads to counter Verizon's. Right now they are letting Verizon use ATT's marketing against them (they are using ATTs own coverage map). It's up to ATT to promote their own view of their coverage map. And then they can also call out their other strengths (ie, simultaneous voice/data). The fact that they have not done so suggests to me that they know it would be a tough sell because their network isn't as strong as Verizons. (But hey, that didn't stop them from advertising "fewest dropped calls" awhile back ... talk about false advertising!)
Edit: And perhaps ATT should be forced to show their 3G coverage map in their own ads when they advertise "fastest 3G network". How is that not misleading advertising to suggest that you'll have the fastest network without specifying where exactly you can get those speeds?
No. The "Presenter" on the conference call (who was probably at his PC/MAC), shared his desktop to all the remote participants using this iPhone App. Check out this App at the App Store. Search for CISCO WEBEX. It just came out on 11/2.
I am familiar with the Webex...we use it here at work.
But from your post it made it seem you were on your iPhone doing using Powerpoint.
I guess I mis understood you.......
I am familiar with the Webex...we use it here at work.
But from your post it made it seem you were on your iPhone doing using Powerpoint.
I guess I mis understood you.......
I used it for the first time yesterday....this is great collaborative tool when you are remote. Concurrent voice and data access is nice.
Again, this is a critical business feature that Verizon/CDMA does not support. I don't think that all the Verizon defenders out there understand that.
Verizon is mostly telling the truth about 3G coverage, but they are sending this message out to people who don't understand what 3G is in the first place. They are leaving the impression that AT&T's 3G coverage is all of AT&T's coverage. That impression is false and damaging to AT&T's business.
AT&T has no issues praising its own 3G coverage to these allegedly ignorant viewers. If what you're saying is true, then AT&T's "fastest 3G" ads should be required to disclose that AT&T also has EDGE. Which, by the way, is not-so-fast, and covers the majority of AT&T's geographical coverage area. Otherwise, by omission, it leaves the false and misleading impression that AT&T's entire network is the "fastest 3G".
Why is it solely Verizon's responsibility to exhaustively educate viewers in their marketing? Other than because AT&T really does not have an answer to Verizon's claim that their 3G has more coverage area, which for a mobile device may be important to some people?
My service drops calls constantly. AT&T should be on their toes because the moment Verizon gets a Iphone, I will pay whatever the cancellation cost is.
I am glad Verizon got their attention.
That's what I did about a year before the iPhone came out. Paid ATT the $150 to get out of my contract. And then to add insult to injury, they tried to add sales tax to the early termination fee! I got it removed, but only after many arguments with their customer service and getting my state's revenue department involved. It was only 10 bucks, but it was the principle of it. It was bad enough I had to pay the $150 because I feel I should have been able to sue them for breach of contract due to their utter failure to deliver the services promised. Dropped calls, failure to connect calls, never delivering text messages, etc, are NOT just due to the iPhone. ATT had these problems long before the iPhone came along.
If AT&T made a map that showed that its fastest 3G area was larger than Verizon's fastest 3G area, then AT&T would be doing the same thing that Verizon is doing.
Its not Verizon's sole responsibility to educate ignorant consumers. At the same time Verizon cannot use consumer ignorance to give the impression that AT&T's network only covers small portions of the US.
AT&T has no issues praising its own 3G coverage to these allegedly ignorant viewers. If what you're saying is true, then AT&T's "fastest 3G" ads should be required to disclose that AT&T also has EDGE. Which, by the way, is not-so-fast, and covers the majority of AT&T's geographical coverage area. Otherwise, by omission, it leaves the false and misleading impression that AT&T's entire network is the "fastest 3G".
Why is it solely Verizon's responsibility to exhaustively educate viewers in their marketing? Other than because AT&T really does not have an answer to Verizon's claim that their 3G has more coverage area, which for a mobile device may be important to some people?
I get excellent connections with AT&T, NO dropped calls, and the one time I called them for support I was treated courteously and the rep was knowledgeable.
I might not feel this way if I lived in NYC or LA.
Verizon will have to change their ways when/if they get the iPhone.
Did you read the same article that the rest of us read (above)? AT&Ts 3G covers 75% of the US population...where we live and work. I wouldn't call that very little. Yeah, it's not 100%.....but I really don't care if AT&T covers some remote mountain valley in the middle of Montana or not.
I have two WiFi routers that provide coverage where I live and work, and it totally blows AT&T's 3G out of the water.
The problem is when I'm between those two areas, and anywhere else for that matter. Sound familiar? Is there a map for that?
Most people don't completely live their lives either in a square mile block of NYC, or in a hut at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I don't see any value to arguing extremes when most people live somewhere between the opposite ends...
I can certainly understand AT&T stand point in the law suit. Not many people in general public know what 3G is. If those people simply look at the map, they may very well assume no service coverage in the "blank area".
Ads are meant to cover the truth but not the whole truth. That is what marketing is. Like dating, you play up your good qualities while hiding your bad ones. Verizon doesn?t advertise that their 3G is considerably slower than AT&T?s when showing they have more coverage just as AT&T doesn?t advertise they have less coverage when they state how it?s faster.
A lot of this is AT&T?s fault anyway. The average customer didn?t care about ?3G? until the iPhone 3G came along. Then AT&T started playing it up but choosing to use the simplistic marketing term without defining it in the least bit despite their primary rival?s ?3G? being a completely different network architecture that is colloquially defined as such. Verizon has taken advantage of this situation brilliantly and AT&T has bitched like an AI troll instead of out maneuvering their competition.
Then again, they might know they can?t win but are hoping this gets free press to help understand the differences. That would be a decent short term tactic while you get some ads made.
Oh well? AT&T says they're the fastest 3g network. You don't see Sprint running up proving them wrong.
You make a good point. If using the ?3G? nomenclature is bad form because it?s confusing then AT&T needs to stop those ads if print?s ?4G? WiMAX is the fastest.
Verizon is mostly telling the truth about 3G coverage, but they are sending this message out to people who don't understand what 3G is in the first place. They are leaving the impression that AT&T's 3G coverage is all of AT&T's coverage. That impression is false and damaging to AT&T's business.
But these are the same people ATT is advertising to that they have the fastest 3G network. So ATT has an expectation that people know what that means. Or are they implying that their network is faster everywhere you'd go (because like Verizon they aren't pointing out their their network isn't all 3G) and are therefore lying in their ads.
Bottom line, ATT is "lying" to people with that ad just as much as Verizon is "lying" with their ad. If ATT isn't highlighting the differences between 3G and the rest of their network in their "fastest 3G" ads, why should Verizon be expected to in their "greater 3G coverage" ads?
I can certainly understand AT&T stand point in the law suit. Not many people in general public know what 3G is. If those people simply look at the map, they may very well assume no service coverage in the "blank area".
You're talking about the same people who buy an "iPhone 3G" assuming they will get 3g service everywhere. There isn't a little * next to the name with a disclaimer on the box.
But these are the same people ATT is advertising to that they have the fastest 3G network. So ATT has an expectation that people know what that means. Or are they implying that their network is faster everywhere you'd go (because like Verizon they aren't pointing out their their network isn't all 3G) and are therefore lying in their ads.
Bottom line, ATT is "lying" to people with that ad just as much as Verizon is "lying" with their ad. If ATT isn't highlighting the differences between 3G and the rest of their network in their "fastest 3G" ads, why should Verizon be expected to in their "greater 3G coverage" ads?