AT&T does praise the speed of its own 3G network, but it has never directly compared the speed of its network against Verizon.
By claiming "fastest", you are by definition comparing yourself against all others. That is a direct comparison, even if you are not specifically naming them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Claiming to have the fastest 3G network does not automatically leave the impression that 3G covers the entire nation.
Correct, if the viewer has a brain. Likewise, showing a map of your 3G coverage does not automatically mean that you have no other types of coverage available, if the viewer has a brain.
What is not fair is to assume that someone viewing the AT&T ad has a brain, while the person viewing the Verizon ad does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
I don't follow. AT&T's fastest 3G area is its 3G area. Verizon's fastest 3G area is its 3G area. That is exactly what Verizon is doing now. Verizon's 3G area IS larger than AT&T's 3G area, so for AT&T to make such a map would be utterly false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
I never got that impression from Verizon. I got the impression that AT&T's 3G network only covers small portions of the US. If you expect all advertising to contain enough information to fully inform 100% of the US population, then we would be living in a world of 15-minute TV ads.
If the average consumer is truly that ignorant about AT&T service, then I see that as a major shortcoming of AT&T, not Verizon. And I have no issue with Verizon exploiting that, as long as they are not outright lying. I have seen nothing from AT&T that proves that they are.
The other issue is that Verizon is also claiming that their EVDO rev 1 is 3g it really is not, it's slower than edge, these ads are total lies, just because it is a 3rd generation does not mean it has the best speeds. Most of this so called country wide 3 g network is rev 1 and will be slower or the same as edge, Verizon really does not have their broadband like speeds in many more places than ATT so this is total crap and ATT should come out with an ad explaining this!!!
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.
That's because you can't really disparage a 200 kbps average speed difference. It's going to save you 5 seconds when you download a ringtone --- ok, I am going to pay my $350 ETF to Verizon and sign with AT&T.
so you're saying if the iPhone originally came out on Verizon, their network would have been able to handle the immediate effect of millions of additional data-heavy users? I didn't think so. Verizon continues to do a fantastic job at marketing their network, convincing people that it's better. All I can speak from is experience, and my 8 years with Cingular / AT&T, including 2.5 years with the iPhone, have been perfectly satisfactory.
Applestud, you need to change your name--too close to Techstud! I agree with you, though. I've been a happy AT&T customer for almost 20 years, and I feel the same way.
When companies like AT&T and Apple enjoy a period of relative success and prosperity, they become targets for the laggards, the envious, and the totally clueless denizens of the "dark places" who natter and carp and nip at their heels.
To me, this blatantly false misrepresentation on the part of Verizon speaks loudly against its own corporate integrity. That's no way to do business, and they're going down!
By claiming "fastest", you are by definition comparing yourself against all others. That is a direct comparison, even if you are not specifically naming them.
Correct, if the viewer has a brain. Likewise, showing a map of your 3G coverage does not automatically mean that you have no other types of coverage available, if the viewer has a brain.
What is not fair is to assume that someone viewing the AT&T ad has a brain, while the person viewing the Verizon ad does not.
I don't follow. AT&T's fastest 3G area is its 3G area. Verizon's fastest 3G area is its 3G area. That is exactly what Verizon is doing now. Verizon's 3G area IS larger than AT&T's 3G area, so for AT&T to make such a map would be utterly false.
I never got that impression from Verizon. I got the impression that AT&T's 3G network only covers small portions of the US. If you expect all advertising to contain enough information to fully inform 100% of the US population, then we would be living in a world of 15-minute TV ads.
If the average consumer is truly that ignorant about AT&T service, then I see that as a major shortcoming of AT&T, not Verizon. And I have no issue with Verizon exploiting that, as long as they are not outright lying. I have seen nothing from AT&T that proves that they are.
Yes but verizons so called 3g network is the same speed as edge where edge is the only option, you have to look at verizons broadband services to get the same speeds as 3g in ATT areas and those are exactly the same for both providers they have the same coverage, if you know about cell phone technology their networks are the same but ATT is building out faster and spending more money on their network so they will be better than Verizon in about a year. Verizon needs to show edge on these maps and then they would compare, Verizon is claiming that their 3g network compares to ATT it does not most of it would compare to edge. They are lying to the American public and ATT has every right to sue them!!!
The other issue is that Verizon is also claiming that their EVDO rev 1 is 3g it really is not, it's slower than edge, these ads are total lies, just because it is a 3rd generation does not mean it has the best speeds. Most of this so called country wide 3 g network is rev 1 and will be slower or the same as edge, Verizon really does not have their broadband like speeds in many more places than ATT so this is total crap and ATT should come out with an ad explaining this!!!
EV-DO rev 0 has a peak theoretical download speed of 2.4 mbps and an average download speed of 400-700 kbps. EV-DO rev A has a peak theoretical download speed of 3.1 mbps and an average download speed of 600-1400 kbps.
EDGE has a peak theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and an average download speed of 150 kbps.
it would be if they put the stats in the right context.
there are reports that 3g is not a standardized term. That what Verizon calls 3g is really closer to Edge in terms of speed. And ATT's 3g is almost twice as fast as both of them.
so give folks that information. with the real numbers. the typicals, not the 'up to' ideals, even. let them see that Verizon 3G does NOT equal ATT 3G but rather ATT Edge
Well, duh. Show me any 3G Service that can outperform WiFi (Wireless N = 54-600 Mbs).
Um, that wasn't the point. We are talking about a MOBILE service. I don't care if AT&T gives me great service where I work and live. My WiFi router does that too. And years ago, my landline did that.
That's not the point of having a cell phone. I have a cell phone for all those areas I go between where I work and live. And sadly, most of those areas are white on the AT&T 3G map.
I'm surprised AT&T doesn't have a class action suit for fraud. I used to have Verizon and their service was flawless. I waited and waited for an iPhone for Verizon, but with the 3GS, I made the plunge and reluctantly switched. Why all the 3G chatter when AT&T can't even keep a simple call connected? There are a lot of times I can't even get a signal. Recently, I drove from NJ to NC and for many, many, many miles from South of Richmond to Raleigh, there was no signal at all. Once in Raleigh, I had some time to kill and stopped into AT&T to see if that was a known dead spot. The woman blamed it on the iPhone and suggested I look at another handset. I then explained to her that the only reason I put up with AT&T is because of the iPhone. I can't wait to pay the cancellation fee and move back to Verizon if they get an iPhone next year. By the way, Verizon's FIOS service also rules.
it would be if they put the stats in the right context.
there are reports that 3g is not a standardized term. That what Verizon calls 3g is really closer to Edge in terms of speed. And ATT's 3g is almost twice as fast as both of them.
so give folks that information. with the real numbers. the typicals, not the 'up to' ideals, even. let them see that Verizon 3G does NOT equal ATT 3G but rather ATT Edge
There are no reports --- it's only Prince McLean who compared a real life average download speed of Verizon's network with AT&T's PAPER SPEC theoretical max speed of EDGE network.
Even if there are portions on the Verizon 3G map with the slower 3G ev-do technology, the average real life speed will still be 3.7 times faster than EDGE's average real life speed.
Go to Verizon's and AT&T's website --- Verizon advertises their average 3G speed as 600-1400 kbps and AT&T advertises their average 3G speed as 700-1700 kbps.
I am an iPhone user and got notified via email that ATT&T activated HSPA 7.2 in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area where I live. I have noticed a significant improvement in 3G performance recently. It was acceptable before, but now some sites I like to visit just pop up quickly like using a desktop computer on a wired connection. I hope it stays fast and doesn't saturate.
EV-DO rev 0 has a peak theoretical download speed of 2.4 mbps and an average download speed of 400-700 kbps. EV-DO rev A has a peak theoretical download speed of 3.1 mbps and an average download speed of 600-1400 kbps.
EDGE has a peak theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and an average download speed of 150 kbps.
I may regret saying this, but after a half dozen articles about this AT&T vs Verizon spat over the past few days, am I the only one who finds it disturbing that there is still so much confusion regarding the basic technologies involved?
For a tech website, I found the original Prince McLean articles confusing in facts yet crystal clear in opinions. Is all this confusion reflective of the quality of the articles, or just the complexity of the subject? Or maybe the article reflects the true situation, in that it has less to do with the merits of the technology and is more about opinions?
If so many people still don't understand the subject after reading a detailed article on a tech website, what can we really expect from a 30-second TV ad?
Even though the stats still put you at "#2", these ads make you look a lot further away than you actually are... hopefully this will help change people's minds
I live in a pretty good 3G area yet it sometes drops to edge and when it does you can't use net and phone or maps and phone. We are one of the largest cities in the world so I don't know how AT&T coulld win. I think you could have AT&T customers lining up out the door with complaints shouldvetizon choose to go down that road.
I can''t speak for the 3G service but I can for the dropped calls. I don't know if it's a CDMA vs GSM thing but Verizon clearly has AT&T beat in stength and clarity at least in NYC.
It's got nothing to do with CDMA -- just that AT&T sucks. The 3G/GSM networks in Europe a super reliable and very fast. 7.2Mbps in Italy -- I wish my Verizon DSL was anywhere near that fast...
AT&T needs to get off their butt and fix the network. If you have a *reliable*, fast network nobody will pay attention to Verizon's BS.
Comments
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.
Well, duh. Show me any 3G Service that can outperform WiFi (Wireless N = 54-600 Mbs).
AT&T does praise the speed of its own 3G network, but it has never directly compared the speed of its network against Verizon.
By claiming "fastest", you are by definition comparing yourself against all others. That is a direct comparison, even if you are not specifically naming them.
Claiming to have the fastest 3G network does not automatically leave the impression that 3G covers the entire nation.
Correct, if the viewer has a brain. Likewise, showing a map of your 3G coverage does not automatically mean that you have no other types of coverage available, if the viewer has a brain.
What is not fair is to assume that someone viewing the AT&T ad has a brain, while the person viewing the Verizon ad does not.
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.
I don't follow. AT&T's fastest 3G area is its 3G area. Verizon's fastest 3G area is its 3G area. That is exactly what Verizon is doing now. Verizon's 3G area IS larger than AT&T's 3G area, so for AT&T to make such a map would be utterly false.
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.
I never got that impression from Verizon. I got the impression that AT&T's 3G network only covers small portions of the US. If you expect all advertising to contain enough information to fully inform 100% of the US population, then we would be living in a world of 15-minute TV ads.
If the average consumer is truly that ignorant about AT&T service, then I see that as a major shortcoming of AT&T, not Verizon. And I have no issue with Verizon exploiting that, as long as they are not outright lying. I have seen nothing from AT&T that proves that they are.
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.
That's because you can't really disparage a 200 kbps average speed difference. It's going to save you 5 seconds when you download a ringtone --- ok, I am going to pay my $350 ETF to Verizon and sign with AT&T.
so you're saying if the iPhone originally came out on Verizon, their network would have been able to handle the immediate effect of millions of additional data-heavy users? I didn't think so. Verizon continues to do a fantastic job at marketing their network, convincing people that it's better. All I can speak from is experience, and my 8 years with Cingular / AT&T, including 2.5 years with the iPhone, have been perfectly satisfactory.
Applestud, you need to change your name--too close to Techstud! I agree with you, though. I've been a happy AT&T customer for almost 20 years, and I feel the same way.
When companies like AT&T and Apple enjoy a period of relative success and prosperity, they become targets for the laggards, the envious, and the totally clueless denizens of the "dark places" who natter and carp and nip at their heels.
To me, this blatantly false misrepresentation on the part of Verizon speaks loudly against its own corporate integrity. That's no way to do business, and they're going down!
By claiming "fastest", you are by definition comparing yourself against all others. That is a direct comparison, even if you are not specifically naming them.
Correct, if the viewer has a brain. Likewise, showing a map of your 3G coverage does not automatically mean that you have no other types of coverage available, if the viewer has a brain.
What is not fair is to assume that someone viewing the AT&T ad has a brain, while the person viewing the Verizon ad does not.
I don't follow. AT&T's fastest 3G area is its 3G area. Verizon's fastest 3G area is its 3G area. That is exactly what Verizon is doing now. Verizon's 3G area IS larger than AT&T's 3G area, so for AT&T to make such a map would be utterly false.
I never got that impression from Verizon. I got the impression that AT&T's 3G network only covers small portions of the US. If you expect all advertising to contain enough information to fully inform 100% of the US population, then we would be living in a world of 15-minute TV ads.
If the average consumer is truly that ignorant about AT&T service, then I see that as a major shortcoming of AT&T, not Verizon. And I have no issue with Verizon exploiting that, as long as they are not outright lying. I have seen nothing from AT&T that proves that they are.
Yes but verizons so called 3g network is the same speed as edge where edge is the only option, you have to look at verizons broadband services to get the same speeds as 3g in ATT areas and those are exactly the same for both providers they have the same coverage, if you know about cell phone technology their networks are the same but ATT is building out faster and spending more money on their network so they will be better than Verizon in about a year. Verizon needs to show edge on these maps and then they would compare, Verizon is claiming that their 3g network compares to ATT it does not most of it would compare to edge. They are lying to the American public and ATT has every right to sue them!!!
The other issue is that Verizon is also claiming that their EVDO rev 1 is 3g it really is not, it's slower than edge, these ads are total lies, just because it is a 3rd generation does not mean it has the best speeds. Most of this so called country wide 3 g network is rev 1 and will be slower or the same as edge, Verizon really does not have their broadband like speeds in many more places than ATT so this is total crap and ATT should come out with an ad explaining this!!!
EV-DO rev 0 has a peak theoretical download speed of 2.4 mbps and an average download speed of 400-700 kbps. EV-DO rev A has a peak theoretical download speed of 3.1 mbps and an average download speed of 600-1400 kbps.
EDGE has a peak theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and an average download speed of 150 kbps.
http://www.waav.com/Technology.html
EV-DO rev 0 is 3.7 times faster than EDGE.
WOW
Go AT&T!
Put out the stats - thats the way to win
it would be if they put the stats in the right context.
there are reports that 3g is not a standardized term. That what Verizon calls 3g is really closer to Edge in terms of speed. And ATT's 3g is almost twice as fast as both of them.
so give folks that information. with the real numbers. the typicals, not the 'up to' ideals, even. let them see that Verizon 3G does NOT equal ATT 3G but rather ATT Edge
Well, duh. Show me any 3G Service that can outperform WiFi (Wireless N = 54-600 Mbs).
Um, that wasn't the point. We are talking about a MOBILE service. I don't care if AT&T gives me great service where I work and live. My WiFi router does that too. And years ago, my landline did that.
That's not the point of having a cell phone. I have a cell phone for all those areas I go between where I work and live. And sadly, most of those areas are white on the AT&T 3G map.
it would be if they put the stats in the right context.
there are reports that 3g is not a standardized term. That what Verizon calls 3g is really closer to Edge in terms of speed. And ATT's 3g is almost twice as fast as both of them.
so give folks that information. with the real numbers. the typicals, not the 'up to' ideals, even. let them see that Verizon 3G does NOT equal ATT 3G but rather ATT Edge
There are no reports --- it's only Prince McLean who compared a real life average download speed of Verizon's network with AT&T's PAPER SPEC theoretical max speed of EDGE network.
Even if there are portions on the Verizon 3G map with the slower 3G ev-do technology, the average real life speed will still be 3.7 times faster than EDGE's average real life speed.
Go to Verizon's and AT&T's website --- Verizon advertises their average 3G speed as 600-1400 kbps and AT&T advertises their average 3G speed as 700-1700 kbps.
EV-DO rev 0 has a peak theoretical download speed of 2.4 mbps and an average download speed of 400-700 kbps. EV-DO rev A has a peak theoretical download speed of 3.1 mbps and an average download speed of 600-1400 kbps.
EDGE has a peak theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and an average download speed of 150 kbps.
http://www.waav.com/Technology.html
EV-DO rev 0 is 3.7 times faster than EDGE.
I may regret saying this, but after a half dozen articles about this AT&T vs Verizon spat over the past few days, am I the only one who finds it disturbing that there is still so much confusion regarding the basic technologies involved?
For a tech website, I found the original Prince McLean articles confusing in facts yet crystal clear in opinions. Is all this confusion reflective of the quality of the articles, or just the complexity of the subject? Or maybe the article reflects the true situation, in that it has less to do with the merits of the technology and is more about opinions?
If so many people still don't understand the subject after reading a detailed article on a tech website, what can we really expect from a 30-second TV ad?
SNIP
Do you want me to sell you the brooklyn bridge too?
where would you live?
where would you live?
Brilliant ... wish I had thought of it.
where would you live?
It will be fun to look back and say "Be careful what you wish for!"
WOW
Go AT&T!
Put out the stats - thats the way to win
Even though the stats still put you at "#2", these ads make you look a lot further away than you actually are... hopefully this will help change people's minds
I live in a pretty good 3G area yet it sometes drops to edge and when it does you can't use net and phone or maps and phone. We are one of the largest cities in the world so I don't know how AT&T coulld win. I think you could have AT&T customers lining up out the door with complaints shouldvetizon choose to go down that road.
Just a thought.
I can''t speak for the 3G service but I can for the dropped calls. I don't know if it's a CDMA vs GSM thing but Verizon clearly has AT&T beat in stength and clarity at least in NYC.
It's got nothing to do with CDMA -- just that AT&T sucks. The 3G/GSM networks in Europe a super reliable and very fast. 7.2Mbps in Italy -- I wish my Verizon DSL was anywhere near that fast...
AT&T needs to get off their butt and fix the network. If you have a *reliable*, fast network nobody will pay attention to Verizon's BS.