Most peoples' opinions are based on ads they see, and anecdotal information... few have actually tested anything. This is good though, as ads are supposed to make you think what the advertiser wants you to think without finding out the contrary on your own.
Now to begin with, all telecom companies are shady. Always have been, always will be. Why else was Bell the first big-deal monopoly that was broken up? Wireless companies take this shadiness a step further. What I can't stand is the snarkiness of Verizon's new ad campaign. I have an AT&T phone for personal, and a Verizon phone for work, and consistantly the AT&T phone is more reliable. It is true that VZW's "3G" network is larger than AT&Ts, but what they fail to mention is that it is only marginally faster than AT&Ts 2.75g EDGE network, which in itself is larger that VZWs 3G. AT&Ts 3G is MUCH faster, and not even a fair comparison (I have personally tested this).
AT&Ts problem (as mentioned in the article linked), is the iPhone. Its popularity grew far too fast, and it's the most data-greedy mobile device there is. This leads to oversubscribed towers, most notable in more populace areas. I doubt seriously any other network could do better with this in their court.
kether, at 12/14/2009 1:31 PM Reputation Level: 14
None
None
I have AT&T because I like unlocked global phones. VZW locks theirs down like CRAZY and paves over all the OSes with their own *ridiculously* cheap-looking interface. T-Mobile would be an option if their service didn't stink and they used the same 3G frequency AT&T (and Rogers in Canada) adopted. I loved when I turned on my new Nokia N85 a few months back and saw "3.5G" whilst accessing the web.
It's like I had said before: wow Verizon, I really don't care that AT&T has no 3G service in Nebraska since I LIVE IN THE NORTHEAST. Although it does have to be stated that Rogers has a much better-deployed 3G network and it covers the boonies where comparable areas in the US have EDGE service from AT&T.
rates rising
By:
rainy, at 12/14/2009 8:38 PM Reputation Level: 182
None
None
I read in Sunday's paper that At&T is planning a rate increase based on the amount of data you use. This is in response to the overwhelming popularity and heavy data usage from the iphone. Look for the new rate schedule coming soon...
He does have some good things to say there... but he brings up a collection of moot points and misrepresented details. That and he complete missed the third source, the SVP of Telecom Research at Nielsen!
Stross’s primary source is Paul Carter, the president of Global Wireless Solutions, a network testing firm. Carter acknowledges that AT&T is one of his company’s clients, and Verizon is not. I mean, come on. Actually 1 of 3 sources, and he outright mentioned that point, to take it with a grain of salt... if he hadn't it'd be another story
Stross’s second source is Root Wireless, a company whose data comes from some sort of software that runs in the background on unnamed smartphones Sounds like a more scientific method than looking at the bars on a phone and running the dslreports test, no?
I’ve brought this up before and readers have argued that the U.S. is a far bigger country than those in Europe, so of course U.S. carriers have a harder job than those in Europe. But that argument doesn’t make sense to me. USA is how many times the area of, say, Belgium? More towers = More... (show all)
capital expense. More capital expense = Less profit. Simple Equation.
...even though a Consumer Reports customer survey says otherwise... BEST way to get me to ignore your argument... Consumer Reports rated the Chevy Cavalier as a "better buy" over the Corvette because "the Corvette is more expensive, and has a stiffer ride". Sheer blindness of reason like that is the kind that only can come from someone who spends their days filling in small circles on charts, and no time actually looking at products and services :P
Top Soapboxes 
Politics
People
Science & Tech
Work & Money
Pop Culture
Be a Fan!
Follow Us!
