Old (grandfathered to my Ip4) 3G plan with unlimited data. And I take the unlimited thing as being unlimited with a minimum of 7gigs of data a month.
Watch out, they don?t have to keep you on that unlimited plan if they don?t want to. Hopefully the increased iPhone competition in the US will force them to keep it for the next iPhone model, but they can stop it at any time.
Watch out, they don?t have to keep you on that unlimited plan if they don?t want to. Hopefully the increased iPhone competition in the US will force them to keep it for the next iPhone model, but they can stop it at any time.
I figured as much and when I bought my 3GS and ip4 I asked and was told. "no you can keep it" - "really", I ask. Response "of course Mr. Carswell, anything else I can help you with?" "actually could you gift me a few million dollars?", we both laugh after a long pause. End transmission.
What is a fast 3G connection by the way. I tested just now at 1552 kbps - iPhone 4 - san Francisco - Castro district - indoors - just curious cause I seem to always have a fast connection. Or is it that really slow? If so what do people want??
Obviously, it must be an Apple event, because Verizon would have invited Gizmodo unless Apple was involved.
On the other hand, maybe Verizon wants to keep people thinking that it's an Apple announcement, so not inviting Gizmodo would be the logical thing to do, even if it's not an Apple announcement.
Then again, that's what people would be expecting. If it was truly an Apple event, and Apple didn't want that known, Apple would have insisted on inviting Gizmodo so people would think it is not an Apple event.
Or maybe over the years, they have built up a resistance to Gizmodo's requests for invitations
Saw this blog on another site, I freakin' fell out and had to share here with the AI crew.
I have an iPad 3G (AT&T) and a Droid (Verizon 3G) so I know very well what I am talking about. If you are withing a ten mile radius of Atlanta, AT&T is faster. Go out more than 10 miles in most directions and Verizon is the same or faster. Go out 20 miles and Verizon is usually significantly faster mainly due to the fact that AT&T has little 3G ( or it is badly degraded ) out that far.....
Again, anecdotal. I'm not saying you aren't correct but I gave you a location, distance from a major city and the state of my current location (population under 2000, can only be described as rural, 1/2 my subdivision travels on the weekends via snowmobiles this time of year) and then gave you the actual speeds... speeds Verizon's network isn't capable of, let alone would dream of delivering.
Not only that, this is in an area (Minnesota) where AT&T had a relatively late start compared to an area like Atlanta.
I would be interested to see what the actual hard data says in those areas that you are talking about. It's been at least 3 years since I've been to Atlanta.
EDIT: Also, you're anecdotal evidence would seem to be at odds with the GWS drive testing (950k miles, 88% of the population). I do find it hard to believe that 20 miles from Atlanta is rural enough to not have been included in some of that drive testing.
Again, anecdotal. I'm not saying you aren't correct but I gave you a location, distance from a major city and the state of my current location (population under 2000, can only be described as rural, 1/2 my subdivision travels on the weekends via snowmobiles this time of year) and then gave you the actual speeds... speeds Verizon's network isn't capable of, let alone would dream of delivering.
Not only that, this is in an area (Minnesota) where AT&T had a relatively late start compared to an area like Atlanta.
I would be interested to see what the actual hard data says in those areas that you are talking about. It's been at least 3 years since I've been to Atlanta.
EDIT: Also, you're anecdotal evidence would seem to be at odds with the GWS drive testing (950k miles, 88% of the population). I do find it hard to believe that 20 miles from Atlanta is rural enough to not have been included in some of that drive testing.
I would not consider a side by side comparison in hundreds of locations to be anecdotal. It is just a fact. I travel all over north Georgia as part of my job. I actually use both devices all of the time at the same location. When you are on a minor interstate coverage is good with AT&T. Ten miles off th interstate in any direction is drops off fast.... More often than not, the Droid can download faster than the iPad when you are roughly ten miles or more out of Atlanta. Since the processor in the iPad is faster and it downloads slower, it is hard to reach ANY other conclusion.....
You can take it or leave it but that is what I see nearly every work day....
I would not consider a side by side comparison in hundreds of locations to be anecdotal. It is just a fact. I travel all over north Georgia as part of my job. I actually use both devices all of the time at the same location. When you are on a minor interstate coverage is good with AT&T. Ten miles off th interstate in any direction is drops off fast.... More often than not, the Droid can download faster than the iPad when you are roughly ten miles or more out of Atlanta. Since the processor in the iPad is faster and it downloads slower, it is hard to reach ANY other conclusion.....
You can take it or leave it but that is what I see nearly every work day....
Funny... you pretty much nailed the exact definition of anecdotal.
anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
Funny... you pretty much nailed the exact definition of anecdotal.
anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
Not when the experiment is repeated several times and the conclusion isn't sweeping.
Define "average American", I thought most American's lived in urban areas where the coverage is.
You would think that; but two of the largest cities (New York and San Fran) is where ATT has the Worst coverage of all. They have simply done a poor job of planning their network. Undersized in big cities and 3g non existent in rural areas. They have earned their reputation for worst US network and worst CS by poor planning and poor execution.
ATT will have a terrible 2011. Loosing iphone monopoly (which is the only descent smartphone they carry) and way behind the curve starting their 4G effort.
Funny... you pretty much nailed the exact definition of anecdotal.
anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
It ceases to be anecdotal when enough test produce the same results... Repeatability is a key aspect of scientific study...
Not when the experiment is repeated several times and the conclusion isn't sweeping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger
It ceases to be anecdotal when enough test produce the same results... Repeatability is a key aspect of scientific study...
Wrong again... the "repeatability" of the "study" doesn't matter if it's a poor, non-scientific study in the first place. Similarly to your example, if I said that Verizon had no coverage anywhere in the United States, absolutely zero sq. feet of coverage, because the only time I turn my phone on when I'm in the basement of my office and there's no signal down there would that be true? Why not? I get the same result every time I try it.
First of all, you don't even know if the results are true, since you aren't measuring anything, you're just "perceiving". Second, there is no scientific method to your testing... you just go out where you go and happen to "test" when you test and see what results you think you're getting. Further, your "results" have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific truth as a whole because they are just that - your results culled from a very restrictive set of circumstances and locations (vs something like the GWS drive testing, for example).
Let's take one of your examples - "More often than not, the Droid can download faster than the iPad when you are roughly ten miles or more out of Atlanta. Since the processor in the iPad is faster and it downloads slower, it is hard to reach ANY other conclusion....."
Scientific Study Problems that pop up immediately - What site is being downloaded? Is it the same site on both devices at roughly the same time? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you are running the original Moto Droid where your processor explanation is true... and I'm also just completely ignoring the estimation word "roughly").
I would rather be in the "slow lane" than stuck in the "fast lane" in a traffic jam. Who cares if their service is "faster" if you can never get get signal??? I'm switching to Verizon iPhone ASAP!
Verizon: high quality - high price, ok customer service. When I go camping the Verizon guys have coverage when no one else does.
T-mobile: good quality - great customer service - decent pricing. Probably the best value combo out there. One up: 4g like network now.
AT&T: so so quality - below average customer service - high price. Probably the worst value combo out there. One up: Iphone
Sprint: Poor call and connect quality - worst customer service known to man. Decent data network. Low cost. Probably the "you get what you pay for provider out there. One up: lots of resellers like Virgin.
Wrong again... the "repeatability" of the "study" doesn't matter if it's a poor, non-scientific study in the first place. Similarly to your example, if I said that Verizon had no coverage anywhere in the United States, absolutely zero sq. feet of coverage, because the only time I turn my phone on when I'm in the basement of my office and there's no signal down there would that be true? Why not? I get the same result every time I try it.
First of all, you don't even know if the results are true, since you aren't measuring anything, you're just "perceiving". Second, there is no scientific method to your testing... you just go out where you go and happen to "test" when you test and see what results you think you're getting. Further, your "results" have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific truth as a whole because they are just that - your results culled from a very restrictive set of circumstances and locations (vs something like the GWS drive testing, for example).
Let's take one of your examples - "More often than not, the Droid can download faster than the iPad when you are roughly ten miles or more out of Atlanta. Since the processor in the iPad is faster and it downloads slower, it is hard to reach ANY other conclusion....."
Scientific Study Problems that pop up immediately - What site is being downloaded? Is it the same site on both devices at roughly the same time? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you are running the original Moto Droid where your processor explanation is true... and I'm also just completely ignoring the estimation word "roughly").
Dude, shut up already about anedoctal. You sound like a smart ass about it, and all the stupid details you are bringing up to prove your point is unnecessary; we've heard this bullshit all the time from people like you.
Perhaps the OP didn't want to post a 5 page post on his data that he did. You ever think that?
Notice how I also said "sweeping conclusion". It means that off the interstate in atlanta, you get faster access on verizon with a droid vs. an ipad. While it is assumed that he tries different sites each time at work, he also perhaps goes to the same sites a lot as well. But if he still does this repeatedly, he can draw that narrow conclusion for what he did.
He didn't try multiple devices, he didn't try an iphone, etc. But the conclusion, narrow as it is still stands.
Dude, shut up already about anedoctal. You sound like a smart ass about it, and all the stupid details you are bringing up to prove your point is unnecessary; we've heard this bullshit all the time from people like you.
Perhaps the OP didn't want to post a 5 page post on his data that he did. You ever think that?
Notice how I also said "sweeping conclusion". It means that off the interstate in atlanta, you get faster access on verizon with a droid vs. an ipad. While it is assumed that he tries different sites each time at work, he also perhaps goes to the same sites a lot as well. But if he still does this repeatedly, he can draw that narrow conclusion for what he did.
He didn't try multiple devices, he didn't try an iphone, etc. But the conclusion, narrow as it is still stands.
I hope you're not counted on to make decisions or rational conclusions on a day to day basis.
And, yes, I may sound like a smart ass but that's because you are clearly wrong, clearly don't understand what a legit study is using the scientific method (6th grade), and clearly don't understand what anecdotal evidence is (although you clearly love using it).
If by "sweeping conclusion" you mean "narrow conclusion", then I guess you're right because you use both terms seemingly interchangeably although they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
2) GSM-based networks are bigger in each of the countries you mention.
You might want to do a bit more research on that one. GSM coverage is tiny in Canada compared to GSM. We have stretches of hundreds of square miles where there is no GSM whatsoever.
You might want to do a bit more research on that one. GSM coverage is tiny in Canada compared to GSM. We have stretches of hundreds of square miles where there is no GSM whatsoever.
I?m sure there are thousands of square miles in Canada where there is no cell coverage at all. It looks to be mostly unpopulated.
It looks like Rogers, the largest carrier in Canada, only supports GSM/UMTS, and all the other major carriers support CDMA and UMTS. That puts UMTS as having more potential subscribers in Canada than CDMA.
I?m sure there are thousands of square miles in Canada where there is no cell coverage at all. It looks to be mostly unpopulated.
It looks like Rogers, the largest carrier in Canada, only supports GSM/UMTS, and all the other major carriers support CDMA and UMTS. That puts UMTS as having more potential subscribers in Canada than CDMA.
You can get a CDMA signal almost everywhere in Canada. Outside of the major cities, GSM is virtually non existent. The argument that it serves the greater population is only valid if those people never leave the city limits.
If I want a signal at the lake, when skiing, when fishing, on the highway, at my parent's place in the mountains, at my in-laws in country, at any of the out of town games that my son plays, I must have a CDMA phone, because there is no GSM signal whatsoever in all of those places.
In ten years, I've never had "no signal' with a CDMA phone. With my 3G iPad, I can't get a signal at least 50% of the time.
There are plenty of feature advantages of GSM, but CDMA blows it away in terms of actually being useful as a phone.
Comments
Old (grandfathered to my Ip4) 3G plan with unlimited data. And I take the unlimited thing as being unlimited with a minimum of 7gigs of data a month.
Watch out, they don?t have to keep you on that unlimited plan if they don?t want to. Hopefully the increased iPhone competition in the US will force them to keep it for the next iPhone model, but they can stop it at any time.
Watch out, they don?t have to keep you on that unlimited plan if they don?t want to. Hopefully the increased iPhone competition in the US will force them to keep it for the next iPhone model, but they can stop it at any time.
I figured as much and when I bought my 3GS and ip4 I asked and was told. "no you can keep it" - "really", I ask. Response "of course Mr. Carswell, anything else I can help you with?" "actually could you gift me a few million dollars?", we both laugh after a long pause. End transmission.
What is a fast 3G connection by the way. I tested just now at 1552 kbps - iPhone 4 - san Francisco - Castro district - indoors - just curious cause I seem to always have a fast connection. Or is it that really slow? If so what do people want??
Just asking. Thanks
Obviously, it must be an Apple event, because Verizon would have invited Gizmodo unless Apple was involved.
On the other hand, maybe Verizon wants to keep people thinking that it's an Apple announcement, so not inviting Gizmodo would be the logical thing to do, even if it's not an Apple announcement.
Then again, that's what people would be expecting. If it was truly an Apple event, and Apple didn't want that known, Apple would have insisted on inviting Gizmodo so people would think it is not an Apple event.
Or maybe over the years, they have built up a resistance to Gizmodo's requests for invitations
Saw this blog on another site, I freakin' fell out and had to share here with the AI crew.
I have an iPad 3G (AT&T) and a Droid (Verizon 3G) so I know very well what I am talking about. If you are withing a ten mile radius of Atlanta, AT&T is faster. Go out more than 10 miles in most directions and Verizon is the same or faster. Go out 20 miles and Verizon is usually significantly faster mainly due to the fact that AT&T has little 3G ( or it is badly degraded ) out that far.....
Again, anecdotal. I'm not saying you aren't correct but I gave you a location, distance from a major city and the state of my current location (population under 2000, can only be described as rural, 1/2 my subdivision travels on the weekends via snowmobiles this time of year) and then gave you the actual speeds... speeds Verizon's network isn't capable of, let alone would dream of delivering.
Not only that, this is in an area (Minnesota) where AT&T had a relatively late start compared to an area like Atlanta.
I would be interested to see what the actual hard data says in those areas that you are talking about. It's been at least 3 years since I've been to Atlanta.
EDIT: Also, you're anecdotal evidence would seem to be at odds with the GWS drive testing (950k miles, 88% of the population). I do find it hard to believe that 20 miles from Atlanta is rural enough to not have been included in some of that drive testing.
Again, anecdotal. I'm not saying you aren't correct but I gave you a location, distance from a major city and the state of my current location (population under 2000, can only be described as rural, 1/2 my subdivision travels on the weekends via snowmobiles this time of year) and then gave you the actual speeds... speeds Verizon's network isn't capable of, let alone would dream of delivering.
Not only that, this is in an area (Minnesota) where AT&T had a relatively late start compared to an area like Atlanta.
I would be interested to see what the actual hard data says in those areas that you are talking about. It's been at least 3 years since I've been to Atlanta.
EDIT: Also, you're anecdotal evidence would seem to be at odds with the GWS drive testing (950k miles, 88% of the population). I do find it hard to believe that 20 miles from Atlanta is rural enough to not have been included in some of that drive testing.
I would not consider a side by side comparison in hundreds of locations to be anecdotal. It is just a fact. I travel all over north Georgia as part of my job. I actually use both devices all of the time at the same location. When you are on a minor interstate coverage is good with AT&T. Ten miles off th interstate in any direction is drops off fast.... More often than not, the Droid can download faster than the iPad when you are roughly ten miles or more out of Atlanta. Since the processor in the iPad is faster and it downloads slower, it is hard to reach ANY other conclusion.....
You can take it or leave it but that is what I see nearly every work day....
"Life in the slow lane?" lol, wow. With the most dropped calls and the worst customer service in the nation, you have a lot of fukn nerve, AT&T.
I believe Jon Stewart said it best at the 7:08 mark:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-2010/appholes
If Verizon can pull off the iPhone, I'm gone.
Hahaha, you just reminded me of the whole reason again why Gizmodo isn't invited.
"You didn't have to go Minority Report on his ass!" Classic
Sometimes PR (more like everything) is secondary to secrecy.
I would not consider a side by side comparison in hundreds of locations to be anecdotal. It is just a fact. I travel all over north Georgia as part of my job. I actually use both devices all of the time at the same location. When you are on a minor interstate coverage is good with AT&T. Ten miles off th interstate in any direction is drops off fast.... More often than not, the Droid can download faster than the iPad when you are roughly ten miles or more out of Atlanta. Since the processor in the iPad is faster and it downloads slower, it is hard to reach ANY other conclusion.....
You can take it or leave it but that is what I see nearly every work day....
Funny... you pretty much nailed the exact definition of anecdotal.
anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
Lawyered.
Funny... you pretty much nailed the exact definition of anecdotal.
anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
Not when the experiment is repeated several times and the conclusion isn't sweeping.
Define "average American", I thought most American's lived in urban areas where the coverage is.
You would think that; but two of the largest cities (New York and San Fran) is where ATT has the Worst coverage of all. They have simply done a poor job of planning their network. Undersized in big cities and 3g non existent in rural areas. They have earned their reputation for worst US network and worst CS by poor planning and poor execution.
ATT will have a terrible 2011. Loosing iphone monopoly (which is the only descent smartphone they carry) and way behind the curve starting their 4G effort.
Funny... you pretty much nailed the exact definition of anecdotal.
anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
It ceases to be anecdotal when enough test produce the same results... Repeatability is a key aspect of scientific study...
Hahaha, you just reminded me of the whole reason again why Gizmodo isn't invited.
"You didn't have to go Minority Report on his ass!" Classic
Sometimes PR (more like everything) is secondary to secrecy.
Not when the experiment is repeated several times and the conclusion isn't sweeping.
It ceases to be anecdotal when enough test produce the same results... Repeatability is a key aspect of scientific study...
Wrong again... the "repeatability" of the "study" doesn't matter if it's a poor, non-scientific study in the first place. Similarly to your example, if I said that Verizon had no coverage anywhere in the United States, absolutely zero sq. feet of coverage, because the only time I turn my phone on when I'm in the basement of my office and there's no signal down there would that be true? Why not? I get the same result every time I try it.
First of all, you don't even know if the results are true, since you aren't measuring anything, you're just "perceiving". Second, there is no scientific method to your testing... you just go out where you go and happen to "test" when you test and see what results you think you're getting. Further, your "results" have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific truth as a whole because they are just that - your results culled from a very restrictive set of circumstances and locations (vs something like the GWS drive testing, for example).
Let's take one of your examples - "More often than not, the Droid can download faster than the iPad when you are roughly ten miles or more out of Atlanta. Since the processor in the iPad is faster and it downloads slower, it is hard to reach ANY other conclusion....."
Scientific Study Problems that pop up immediately - What site is being downloaded? Is it the same site on both devices at roughly the same time? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you are running the original Moto Droid where your processor explanation is true... and I'm also just completely ignoring the estimation word "roughly").
Each have their pros and cons.
Here is my experience with all the cell carriers
Verizon: high quality - high price, ok customer service. When I go camping the Verizon guys have coverage when no one else does.
T-mobile: good quality - great customer service - decent pricing. Probably the best value combo out there. One up: 4g like network now.
AT&T: so so quality - below average customer service - high price. Probably the worst value combo out there. One up: Iphone
Sprint: Poor call and connect quality - worst customer service known to man. Decent data network. Low cost. Probably the "you get what you pay for provider out there. One up: lots of resellers like Virgin.
Gene Evangelist
Wrong again... the "repeatability" of the "study" doesn't matter if it's a poor, non-scientific study in the first place. Similarly to your example, if I said that Verizon had no coverage anywhere in the United States, absolutely zero sq. feet of coverage, because the only time I turn my phone on when I'm in the basement of my office and there's no signal down there would that be true? Why not? I get the same result every time I try it.
First of all, you don't even know if the results are true, since you aren't measuring anything, you're just "perceiving". Second, there is no scientific method to your testing... you just go out where you go and happen to "test" when you test and see what results you think you're getting. Further, your "results" have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific truth as a whole because they are just that - your results culled from a very restrictive set of circumstances and locations (vs something like the GWS drive testing, for example).
Let's take one of your examples - "More often than not, the Droid can download faster than the iPad when you are roughly ten miles or more out of Atlanta. Since the processor in the iPad is faster and it downloads slower, it is hard to reach ANY other conclusion....."
Scientific Study Problems that pop up immediately - What site is being downloaded? Is it the same site on both devices at roughly the same time? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you are running the original Moto Droid where your processor explanation is true... and I'm also just completely ignoring the estimation word "roughly").
Dude, shut up already about anedoctal. You sound like a smart ass about it, and all the stupid details you are bringing up to prove your point is unnecessary; we've heard this bullshit all the time from people like you.
Perhaps the OP didn't want to post a 5 page post on his data that he did. You ever think that?
Notice how I also said "sweeping conclusion". It means that off the interstate in atlanta, you get faster access on verizon with a droid vs. an ipad. While it is assumed that he tries different sites each time at work, he also perhaps goes to the same sites a lot as well. But if he still does this repeatedly, he can draw that narrow conclusion for what he did.
He didn't try multiple devices, he didn't try an iphone, etc. But the conclusion, narrow as it is still stands.
Dude, shut up already about anedoctal. You sound like a smart ass about it, and all the stupid details you are bringing up to prove your point is unnecessary; we've heard this bullshit all the time from people like you.
Perhaps the OP didn't want to post a 5 page post on his data that he did. You ever think that?
Notice how I also said "sweeping conclusion". It means that off the interstate in atlanta, you get faster access on verizon with a droid vs. an ipad. While it is assumed that he tries different sites each time at work, he also perhaps goes to the same sites a lot as well. But if he still does this repeatedly, he can draw that narrow conclusion for what he did.
He didn't try multiple devices, he didn't try an iphone, etc. But the conclusion, narrow as it is still stands.
I hope you're not counted on to make decisions or rational conclusions on a day to day basis.
And, yes, I may sound like a smart ass but that's because you are clearly wrong, clearly don't understand what a legit study is using the scientific method (6th grade), and clearly don't understand what anecdotal evidence is (although you clearly love using it).
If by "sweeping conclusion" you mean "narrow conclusion", then I guess you're right because you use both terms seemingly interchangeably although they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
2) GSM-based networks are bigger in each of the countries you mention.
You might want to do a bit more research on that one. GSM coverage is tiny in Canada compared to GSM. We have stretches of hundreds of square miles where there is no GSM whatsoever.
You might want to do a bit more research on that one. GSM coverage is tiny in Canada compared to GSM. We have stretches of hundreds of square miles where there is no GSM whatsoever.
I?m sure there are thousands of square miles in Canada where there is no cell coverage at all. It looks to be mostly unpopulated.
It looks like Rogers, the largest carrier in Canada, only supports GSM/UMTS, and all the other major carriers support CDMA and UMTS. That puts UMTS as having more potential subscribers in Canada than CDMA.
I?m sure there are thousands of square miles in Canada where there is no cell coverage at all. It looks to be mostly unpopulated.
It looks like Rogers, the largest carrier in Canada, only supports GSM/UMTS, and all the other major carriers support CDMA and UMTS. That puts UMTS as having more potential subscribers in Canada than CDMA.
You can get a CDMA signal almost everywhere in Canada. Outside of the major cities, GSM is virtually non existent. The argument that it serves the greater population is only valid if those people never leave the city limits.
If I want a signal at the lake, when skiing, when fishing, on the highway, at my parent's place in the mountains, at my in-laws in country, at any of the out of town games that my son plays, I must have a CDMA phone, because there is no GSM signal whatsoever in all of those places.
In ten years, I've never had "no signal' with a CDMA phone. With my 3G iPad, I can't get a signal at least 50% of the time.
There are plenty of feature advantages of GSM, but CDMA blows it away in terms of actually being useful as a phone.