It is obvious that Verizon's commercials are not misleading. They do compare the products apples to apples (or Apples to Droids networks that is).
Ugh. This whole thing is stupid. 3G is a label that has no comparative value.
EDGE is "2.5 G", yet it's faster then the majority of Verizon's 3G? I think AT&T is fully justified in calling Verizon out. The problem they face is these worthless 2G, 3G, and 4G labels that lack any conveyance of the real capabilities behind the labels. AT&T's 3G will be faster then Verizon's 4G - for years! it's a more mature technology, and if history carries forward, mature 3G chipsets will have vastly superior power usage.
About the only way they can combat it is to release maps that outline network capabilities in something absolute such as data rate. The problem is the 30 second attention span of the average American consumer won't comprhend anything other the "ooh, the higher number must be better!"
I also find it interesting that our European friends who are quick to comment on other advertising related stories with their different truth in advertising laws are quiet on this one...
I think AT&T is fully justified in calling Verizon out. The problem they face is these worthless 2G, 3G, and 4G labels that lack any conveyance of the real capabilities behind the labels.
Unfortunately for ATT, it's their own fault for labeling their networks this way. It's ATT who defined what 3G is on their network. It's ATT who started the 3G-only network comparisons with their "fastest 3G" advertising. ATT compares 3G based on speed, Verizon compares 3G based on geographic reach. Both companies highlight their 3G strength and BOTH mislead people by leaving out their 3G weaknesses.
It's nothing but hot blown smoke. Whoever even let that comment get into the NYTimes is a drip. Of course carriers would like to stop slashing the prices of phones, start collecting retail sales revenue from them, AND continue to gouge people inhumanely will ridiculous usage costs. That isn't "news", or even slightly interesting information.
The part that matters is the summary comment on that idea, where it mentions those "people" who like shiny new phones. Those "people" are the customers who decide if wireless carriers succeed or die. The most popular smartphone in the world currently sells for $99 - $299. AT&T stops subsidizing tomorrow, they also stop selling iPhones.
EDGE is "2.5 G", yet it's faster then the majority of Verizon's 3G? I think AT&T is fully justified in calling Verizon out. The problem they face is these worthless 2G, 3G, and 4G labels that lack any conveyance of the real capabilities behind the labels. AT&T's 3G will be faster then Verizon's 4G - for years! it's a more mature technology, and if history carries forward, mature 3G chipsets will have vastly superior power usage.
do you enjoy just hearing crap and regurgitating it back?
Quote:
EVDO Rev 0: 400kbps-1000kbps Download (bursts up to 2.0Mbps), 50kbps-100kbps Upload (bursts to 144Kbps)
EVDO Rev A: 600Kbps-1,400Kbps Download (bursts to 3.1Mbps), 500Kbps-800Kbps Upload (bursts to 1.8Mbps)
thats verizon's 3g speeds
Quote:
EDGE can carry a bandwidth up to 236.8 kbit/s (with end-to-end latency of less than 150 ms) for 4 timeslots (theoretical maximum is 473.6 kbit/s for 8 timeslots) in packet mode.
thats att's edge network.
if you want to argue that the theoretical maximum is faster than the slowest evdo... i will argue in the same place that you say the maximum is reached, that the evdo maximum is reached. this would be the case as you would have to be in the middle of nowhere with no one else using the airwaves.
please. learn your facts, then post again. i hate people who just spit something out that they heard from somewhere and have no basis of anything.
The article gives examples of how carriers experiment with alternative pricing structures that they feel would be a better deal for the consumer. But consumers don't take deal. The carriers have to be cautious about pricing structures and deals as they are under pressure to increase their subscriber base. They cannot risk trying something that does not work and pushes subscribers away.
Ultimately it would be better for the consumer in the long run if you bought the phone full price with no contract.
The article describes AT&T's attempt to sell the iPhone at full price with cheaper data plans, but the majority of people chose the subsidized phone with the higher data plan.
Even with AT&T allowing roll over minutes, people still buy more expensive minute plans to have more roll over minutes.
Sprint attempted to sell a plan that allows people to buy 50 minute blocks for $2.50 (that's 5 cents a minute) instead of charging 45 cents for minute overages. Most people did not take the deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
It's nothing but hot blown smoke. Whoever even let that comment get into the NYTimes is a drip. Of course carriers would like to stop slashing the prices of phones, start collecting retail sales revenue from them, AND continue to gouge people inhumanely will ridiculous usage costs. That isn't "news", or even slightly interesting information.
The part that matters is the summary comment on that idea, where it mentions those "people" who like shiny new phones. Those "people" are the customers who decide if wireless carriers succeed or die. The most popular smartphone in the world currently sells for $99 - $299. AT&T stops subsidizing tomorrow, they also stop selling iPhones.
Let's be a little more explicit: VZW will be starting its LTE conversion starting next year. It's very unlikely that VZW will have completed a total transition to LTE by 2013. They will be stuck with the problem of assuring backward compatibility with their existing CDMA network for a long time, especially in outlying areas. Your assertions conveniently ignore the fact that AT&T will also be rolling out its LTE during that period, although starting slightly later than VZW. However AT&T enjoys the advantage of LTE being backward compatible with its existing data network.
VZW undoubtedly has better network coverage today, but they are also facing a much harder job managing the LTE transition from today's incompatible CDMA technology. This will be somewhat akin to the painful analog to digital switchover of several years ago.
That's of course incorrect. The iPhone can and does multitask.
If it didn't, my phone wouldn't ring while I listened to music. As most other people know, Apple keeps a tight leash on multitasking to control iPhone battery life, and while it's legitimate to disagree with the choices they made, they did so for considered reasons.
To address your specific point, Apple certainly does allow voice calling while maintaining active 3G data services in the background. The Mail app will also background, as will certain utility apps such as the timer, the alarm clock and so on. I don't believe that any third party apps are allowed to background other than by using Notification Services.
In my area (Midwest), VZW is the dominant carrier and has very good coverage. However I've been pleasantly surprised with AT&T after switching to them in mid-2008 after many years with VZW. That doesn't negate the problems people in SFO or NYC have with AT&T coverage, but it's incorrect to assume that their problems are everyone's problems. I've also had excellent experiences both with my local AT&T stores and when calling their customer service line.
Lastly it's naive to imagine that, had VZW landed the iPhone instead of AT&T, everything would have been rosy on their network. It's very clear in hindsight that nobody imagined the intensity with which iPhone users would consume cellular data bandwidth. We can't know to what degree, but it's certain that VZW too would have had its share of problems.
NeilM take a look at Verizon's roadmap for the next 3 years, they have already committed to LTE (and to be honest, id rather have LTE than another form of slightly faster EVDO, which is all AT&T is doing with HSPA+) and will begin the first rollouts next year. AT&T isnt even starting until 2011 with their first city... Also im not sure why you think LTE wont be backwards compatibile with the current Verizon network, because reports contradict that greatly.
Iphone battery life is pathetic already, everytime me and my girl get in the car she has to charge her phone because by the time its noonish its already half dead which is sad really, usually if were listening to pandora or something its coming from my blackberry (yay bluetooth visor) and not her iphone because she doesnt want to use her phone so it gets the max charge possible. There are phones just as graphical out and can multi-task effectively on EVERY APP so i will not give Apple the slightest bit of lenience here.
Your right, AT&Ts woes consist of high populous cities when i leave town from Daytona and head for Orlando its guaranteed im losing 3G on my Bold until i get to Orlando, sometimes it will pop in and out but i never had this issue on Verizon and out of the 4 years ive had service, ive suffered maybe 10 dropped calls?, and certain areas of Orlando are drop call alley like around UCF or colonial blvd so it makes me wonder how bad exactly those in NYC or SF have it.
And while we all like to say VZW wouldn't have been prepared for the iphone anymore than AT&T i would beg to differ, when you invest billions upon billions every year into your network and service, it shows and while im sure the iphone would have brought VZW to its knees they would have figured it out idk 2 years ago how to handle it, AT&T is still struggling to get its head wrapped around the poor network
AT&T needs to stop whining, man up, and start producing ads that showcase the inherent benefits of HSPA over EVDO.
Which are?
- that it can't effectively be used in the USA due to FCC restrictions?
- that it is a power hog?
- that ATT has only token coverage with HSPA, anyway?
The quick analogy is that having WCDMA+HSPA is like having a corvette with bicycle tires.
CDMA2000+EVDO, simply put, is the best 3G technology when it comes to the whole package. It's very rare to find a cell that has a wide-open WCDMA+HSPA channel anywhere in the world, so the data rate bonus is moot, and you pay in battery life for the needier DSP and wideband amplification of WCDMA no matter how fast the data is coming. CDMA2000 uses a much narrower bandwidth (takes less spectrum), so not only is it a lot more likely that you will achieve max EVDO data rate, but it's less costly from an energy perspective.
The WCDMA call quality is undoubtedly a vast improvement over the pitiful 2G GSM, but it's not any better than 2G CDMAone or much less 3G CDMA2000.
LTE isn't too far away, and at that point very little of this will matter. But until then, Verizon and Sprint have, without question, better 3G performance than does any US-based WCDMA operator. The fact is, for the last 15 years the GSM technology roadmap has been the inferior one. If it weren't for EU economic protectionism, the whole world would have gone with the CDMAone roadmap ages ago.
Comments
It is obvious that Verizon's commercials are not misleading. They do compare the products apples to apples (or Apples to Droids networks that is).
Ugh. This whole thing is stupid. 3G is a label that has no comparative value.
EDGE is "2.5 G", yet it's faster then the majority of Verizon's 3G? I think AT&T is fully justified in calling Verizon out. The problem they face is these worthless 2G, 3G, and 4G labels that lack any conveyance of the real capabilities behind the labels. AT&T's 3G will be faster then Verizon's 4G - for years! it's a more mature technology, and if history carries forward, mature 3G chipsets will have vastly superior power usage.
About the only way they can combat it is to release maps that outline network capabilities in something absolute such as data rate. The problem is the 30 second attention span of the average American consumer won't comprhend anything other the "ooh, the higher number must be better!"
I also find it interesting that our European friends who are quick to comment on other advertising related stories with their different truth in advertising laws are quiet on this one...
None of them are perfect. However, VZ is the sore looser in market share. VZ missed the chance to get the exclusive on the iPhone.
purely rumor
I think AT&T is fully justified in calling Verizon out. The problem they face is these worthless 2G, 3G, and 4G labels that lack any conveyance of the real capabilities behind the labels.
Unfortunately for ATT, it's their own fault for labeling their networks this way. It's ATT who defined what 3G is on their network. It's ATT who started the 3G-only network comparisons with their "fastest 3G" advertising. ATT compares 3G based on speed, Verizon compares 3G based on geographic reach. Both companies highlight their 3G strength and BOTH mislead people by leaving out their 3G weaknesses.
Pot calling the kettle black, if you ask me.
Please explain exactly which part of this is the phone carrier wanting to get out of the practice of subsidizing the cost of phones?
Read the NY Times article and it explains.
No, it doesn't.
Read the NY Times article and it explains.
It's nothing but hot blown smoke. Whoever even let that comment get into the NYTimes is a drip. Of course carriers would like to stop slashing the prices of phones, start collecting retail sales revenue from them, AND continue to gouge people inhumanely will ridiculous usage costs. That isn't "news", or even slightly interesting information.
The part that matters is the summary comment on that idea, where it mentions those "people" who like shiny new phones. Those "people" are the customers who decide if wireless carriers succeed or die. The most popular smartphone in the world currently sells for $99 - $299. AT&T stops subsidizing tomorrow, they also stop selling iPhones.
EDGE is "2.5 G", yet it's faster then the majority of Verizon's 3G? I think AT&T is fully justified in calling Verizon out. The problem they face is these worthless 2G, 3G, and 4G labels that lack any conveyance of the real capabilities behind the labels. AT&T's 3G will be faster then Verizon's 4G - for years! it's a more mature technology, and if history carries forward, mature 3G chipsets will have vastly superior power usage.
do you enjoy just hearing crap and regurgitating it back?
EVDO Rev 0: 400kbps-1000kbps Download (bursts up to 2.0Mbps), 50kbps-100kbps Upload (bursts to 144Kbps)
EVDO Rev A: 600Kbps-1,400Kbps Download (bursts to 3.1Mbps), 500Kbps-800Kbps Upload (bursts to 1.8Mbps)
thats verizon's 3g speeds
EDGE can carry a bandwidth up to 236.8 kbit/s (with end-to-end latency of less than 150 ms) for 4 timeslots (theoretical maximum is 473.6 kbit/s for 8 timeslots) in packet mode.
thats att's edge network.
if you want to argue that the theoretical maximum is faster than the slowest evdo... i will argue in the same place that you say the maximum is reached, that the evdo maximum is reached. this would be the case as you would have to be in the middle of nowhere with no one else using the airwaves.
please. learn your facts, then post again. i hate people who just spit something out that they heard from somewhere and have no basis of anything.
Ultimately it would be better for the consumer in the long run if you bought the phone full price with no contract.
No, it doesn't.
Even with AT&T allowing roll over minutes, people still buy more expensive minute plans to have more roll over minutes.
Sprint attempted to sell a plan that allows people to buy 50 minute blocks for $2.50 (that's 5 cents a minute) instead of charging 45 cents for minute overages. Most people did not take the deal.
It's nothing but hot blown smoke. Whoever even let that comment get into the NYTimes is a drip. Of course carriers would like to stop slashing the prices of phones, start collecting retail sales revenue from them, AND continue to gouge people inhumanely will ridiculous usage costs. That isn't "news", or even slightly interesting information.
The part that matters is the summary comment on that idea, where it mentions those "people" who like shiny new phones. Those "people" are the customers who decide if wireless carriers succeed or die. The most popular smartphone in the world currently sells for $99 - $299. AT&T stops subsidizing tomorrow, they also stop selling iPhones.
Let's be a little more explicit: VZW will be starting its LTE conversion starting next year. It's very unlikely that VZW will have completed a total transition to LTE by 2013. They will be stuck with the problem of assuring backward compatibility with their existing CDMA network for a long time, especially in outlying areas. Your assertions conveniently ignore the fact that AT&T will also be rolling out its LTE during that period, although starting slightly later than VZW. However AT&T enjoys the advantage of LTE being backward compatible with its existing data network.
VZW undoubtedly has better network coverage today, but they are also facing a much harder job managing the LTE transition from today's incompatible CDMA technology. This will be somewhat akin to the painful analog to digital switchover of several years ago.
That's of course incorrect. The iPhone can and does multitask.
If it didn't, my phone wouldn't ring while I listened to music. As most other people know, Apple keeps a tight leash on multitasking to control iPhone battery life, and while it's legitimate to disagree with the choices they made, they did so for considered reasons.
To address your specific point, Apple certainly does allow voice calling while maintaining active 3G data services in the background. The Mail app will also background, as will certain utility apps such as the timer, the alarm clock and so on. I don't believe that any third party apps are allowed to background other than by using Notification Services.
In my area (Midwest), VZW is the dominant carrier and has very good coverage. However I've been pleasantly surprised with AT&T after switching to them in mid-2008 after many years with VZW. That doesn't negate the problems people in SFO or NYC have with AT&T coverage, but it's incorrect to assume that their problems are everyone's problems. I've also had excellent experiences both with my local AT&T stores and when calling their customer service line.
Lastly it's naive to imagine that, had VZW landed the iPhone instead of AT&T, everything would have been rosy on their network. It's very clear in hindsight that nobody imagined the intensity with which iPhone users would consume cellular data bandwidth. We can't know to what degree, but it's certain that VZW too would have had its share of problems.
NeilM take a look at Verizon's roadmap for the next 3 years, they have already committed to LTE (and to be honest, id rather have LTE than another form of slightly faster EVDO, which is all AT&T is doing with HSPA+) and will begin the first rollouts next year. AT&T isnt even starting until 2011 with their first city... Also im not sure why you think LTE wont be backwards compatibile with the current Verizon network, because reports contradict that greatly.
Iphone battery life is pathetic already, everytime me and my girl get in the car she has to charge her phone because by the time its noonish its already half dead which is sad really, usually if were listening to pandora or something its coming from my blackberry (yay bluetooth visor) and not her iphone because she doesnt want to use her phone so it gets the max charge possible. There are phones just as graphical out and can multi-task effectively on EVERY APP so i will not give Apple the slightest bit of lenience here.
Your right, AT&Ts woes consist of high populous cities when i leave town from Daytona and head for Orlando its guaranteed im losing 3G on my Bold until i get to Orlando, sometimes it will pop in and out but i never had this issue on Verizon and out of the 4 years ive had service, ive suffered maybe 10 dropped calls?, and certain areas of Orlando are drop call alley like around UCF or colonial blvd so it makes me wonder how bad exactly those in NYC or SF have it.
And while we all like to say VZW wouldn't have been prepared for the iphone anymore than AT&T i would beg to differ, when you invest billions upon billions every year into your network and service, it shows and while im sure the iphone would have brought VZW to its knees they would have figured it out idk 2 years ago how to handle it, AT&T is still struggling to get its head wrapped around the poor network
AT&T needs to stop whining, man up, and start producing ads that showcase the inherent benefits of HSPA over EVDO.
Which are?
- that it can't effectively be used in the USA due to FCC restrictions?
- that it is a power hog?
- that ATT has only token coverage with HSPA, anyway?
The quick analogy is that having WCDMA+HSPA is like having a corvette with bicycle tires.
CDMA2000+EVDO, simply put, is the best 3G technology when it comes to the whole package. It's very rare to find a cell that has a wide-open WCDMA+HSPA channel anywhere in the world, so the data rate bonus is moot, and you pay in battery life for the needier DSP and wideband amplification of WCDMA no matter how fast the data is coming. CDMA2000 uses a much narrower bandwidth (takes less spectrum), so not only is it a lot more likely that you will achieve max EVDO data rate, but it's less costly from an energy perspective.
The WCDMA call quality is undoubtedly a vast improvement over the pitiful 2G GSM, but it's not any better than 2G CDMAone or much less 3G CDMA2000.
LTE isn't too far away, and at that point very little of this will matter. But until then, Verizon and Sprint have, without question, better 3G performance than does any US-based WCDMA operator. The fact is, for the last 15 years the GSM technology roadmap has been the inferior one. If it weren't for EU economic protectionism, the whole world would have gone with the CDMAone roadmap ages ago.