Has Anyone Held Out For Years Waiting For it to Come To VERIZON?

[kdarling]

Really? I count around 16 to 17 states that appear to have very spotty coverage. Hopefully they have good roaming agreements and you don't care about 3G data speeds.

And no one can own an iPhone on ATT in most of those blank areas, because there's only 100% roaming there (no ATT owned towers).

(It's a good bet that people in those large roaming areas who want an iPad 3G also won't be able to sign up for iPad data service. Some reporter needs to check on that.)

By sticking with ATT, Apple is ignoring 2/3 of US cell phone customers on other carriers, and almost 1/2 of US geography that's not natively covered by ATT.

Re: LTE. After early 2014, Verizon will have LTE rolled out to 100% of their current area. No need for CDMA fallback.

 

[jav6454]

And no one can own an iPhone on ATT in most of those blank areas, because there's only 100% roaming there (no ATT owned towers).

(It's a good bet that people in those large roaming areas who want an iPad 3G also won't be able to sign up for iPad data service. Some reporter needs to check on that.)

By sticking with ATT, Apple is ignoring 2/3 of US cell phone customers on other carriers, and almost 1/2 of US geography that's not natively covered by ATT.

Re: LTE. After early 2014, Verizon will have LTE rolled out to 100% of their current area. No need for CDMA fallback.

That is Verizon's plan, doesn't mean plans follow thru, anything can happen. Also, last I checked AT&T had a map that resembled the US's population density... where is? Ah, here it is:

AT&T's coverage map largely resembles that. It makes perfect sense to target higher populated areas. See:

 

[Applejuiced]

Someone did his homework.....

 

[kdarling]

AT&T's coverage map largely resembles that. It makes perfect sense to target higher populated areas.

It also leaves 80 million Americans outside of 3G coverage, and thus with little reason to get an iPad 3G.

It's a similar situation as to owning an iPhone vs iPod touch. Those without ATT coverage will have to settle for WiFi only.

 

[jav6454]

It also leaves 80 million Americans outside of 3G coverage, and thus with little reason to get an iPad 3G.

It's a similar situation as to owning an iPhone vs iPod touch. Those without ATT coverage will have to settle for WiFi only.

And there is the kicker... 80 million Americans do not equal 2/3 of the population; more like 1/3. Also, of those 1/3 of the population, not all of them require 3G, some will be very happy with Wi-Fi alone. Even more so, those 1/3 do have EDGE access if 3G is lacking, slower, but it works nonetheless.

 

[icyfire]

That is Verizon's plan, doesn't mean plans follow thru, anything can happen. Also, last I checked AT&T had a map that resembled the US's population density... where is? Ah, here it is:

AT&T's coverage map largely resembles that. It makes perfect sense to target higher populated areas. See:

Just because those areas have low population densities, doesn't mean that there aren't people who are traveling through those areas or staying there temporarily. And frankly what about 3G? AT&T's 3G map is pathetic, it barely covers even the densely populated areas of this country. What good is faster 3G and simultaneous talk/surf when it barely covers any part of the country? And how do you talk and surf simultaneously without 3G which is the case in most of the country?

 

[jav6454]

Just because those areas have low population densities, doesn't mean that there aren't people who are traveling through those areas or staying there temporarily. And frankly what about 3G? AT&T's 3G map is pathetic, it barely covers even the densely populated areas of this country. What good is faster 3G and simultaneous talk/surf when it barely covers any part of the country? And how do you talk and surf simultaneously without 3G which is the case in most of the country?

The argument is people living in those areas, not traveling. And we are not comparing 3G either, we are debating coverage vs population densities. So, all your points are moot.

 

[scaredpoet]

What good is faster 3G and simultaneous talk/surf when it barely covers any part of the country?

The same good that Verizon gives you ALL OVER the country, actually.

If you do compare on features and speed, rather than a marketing term, you pretty much get the same level of service just about everywhere on Verizon's map that you would on AT&T. In the blue areas, the level of service is kicked up a notch: simultaneous talk/surf, faster speeds.

And then there's WiFi, which where it's available, makes the whole 3G map thing moot anyway.

But again, it all boils down to whether you're willing to beleive marketing hype and continue the sour-grapes approach of waiting for Verizon to get an iPhone (which will be a long, long wait), or recognizing the reality.

 

[Applejuiced]

Just because those areas have low population densities, doesn't mean that there aren't people who are traveling through those areas or staying there temporarily. And frankly what about 3G? AT&T's 3G map is pathetic, it barely covers even the densely populated areas of this country. What good is faster 3G and simultaneous talk/surf when it barely covers any part of the country? And how do you talk and surf simultaneously without 3G which is the case in most of the country?

Not everyone travels thruout the whole country for a living.
If I go for vacation 2-3 times per year I can put up with no 3G or not excellent coverage for a few days. 98% of my time is spend at my local area and not out in urban areas in the middle of nothing.
What matters to me is how the network is where I live and not how it performs in South Dakota or Wyoming.

 

[bobfitz14]

It's definitely not coming to Verizon until they stop running the anti-iPhone ads!!!!

aren't they more anti-AT&T than anti-iPhone...? unless i'm not thinking of the same ads as you.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

there aren't people who are traveling through those areas or staying there temporarily.

If you look at your own map you realize that you do get roaming through most of those areas. (diagonal stripes)

which is pretty close to verizons map

 

[icyfire]

If you look at your own map you realize that you do get roaming through most of those areas. (diagonal stripes)

which is pretty close to verizons map

yes I'm aware that AT&T 2G roaming is widely available. But what about 3G roaming? Also I thought AT&T discourages roaming.

 

[icyfire]

If you do compare on features and speed, rather than a marketing term, you pretty much get the same level of service just about everywhere on Verizon's map that you would on AT&T. In the blue areas, the level of service is kicked up a notch: simultaneous talk/surf, faster speeds.

I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying that EDGE is as fast as EVDO? Because I've used EDGE on the iPhone and EVDO on a Droid and there's no comparison, EVDO is much faster. Yes, not as fast as ATT 3G but it is definitely fast enough for a satisfactory 3G experience.

 

[icyfire]

The argument is people living in those areas, not traveling. And we are not comparing 3G either, we are debating coverage vs population densities. So, all your points are moot.

Why not compare 3G? We are talking about the iPhone which needs some sort of 3G coverage to function properly (sorry, crappy EDGE doesn't cut it in my books) so I think discussion about 3G coverage is fair game.

 

[linsam]

Answer: NO

 

[jav6454]

Why not compare 3G? We are talking about the iPhone which needs some sort of 3G coverage to function properly (sorry, crappy EDGE doesn't cut it in my books) so I think discussion about 3G coverage is fair game.

Because I used the 1st Gen iPhone and so did more than 500,000 people and no one complained about EDGE. Sure we all wished for fasters speeds, but we always thought we had Jesus' cellphone on our hands. We wanted 3G knowing that coverage wasn't there yet, and look, we got it. Now, we (yes we) who owned a 1st Gen iPhone do not complain at all about AT&T. (Except many NYC/SFB people, that I understand). The iPhone never needed 3G to function, EDGE made it all possible and sufficient browsing experience for a quick look. Remember, that was the selling point on the iPhone. Look something up quickly on your phone and enjoy your movies. It was never meant as a replacement of your laptop or desktop browsing experience. Don't mention the App Store's data hog apps, because Apple is pitching those apps, the games and features of that on the iPod Touch. iPhone is being pitched with mobile stuff, quick buy, mobile business apps. Nothing that is data intensive. Hence, EDGE will be fine and is fine in majority cases.

Once again, this is a moot point to this argument (coverage).

yes I'm aware that AT&T 2G roaming is widely available. But what about 3G roaming? Also I thought AT&T discourages roaming.

Yes and no. AT&T will allow you to roam freely but you have to behave (according to them). No over usage of the plan on roaming.

I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying that EDGE is as fast as EVDO? Because I've used EDGE on the iPhone and EVDO on a Droid and there's no comparison, EVDO is much faster. Yes, not as fast as ATT 3G but it is definitely fast enough for a satisfactory 3G experience.

EV-DO Rev 0 is almost on par in real speeds with EDGE. However, Verizon has Rev A almost all over, so it's a moot point. Yes, EV-DO Rev A is faster than EDGE obviously. However, they both suffer from that handicap of talk/surf.

 

[DakotaGuy]

And there is the kicker... 80 million Americans do not equal 2/3 of the population; more like 1/3. Also, of those 1/3 of the population, not all of them require 3G, some will be very happy with Wi-Fi alone. Even more so, those 1/3 do have EDGE access if 3G is lacking, slower, but it works nonetheless.

Just because some of us choose to live in an area with more trees and less concrete doesn't mean we don't deserve good service. I am sitting in one of the most beautiful areas in the US, but since it is not highly populated AT&T won't take the time to provide service. Verizon does. Verizon not only provides service, but also provides an excellent 3G service. In a city of 4,500 tucked in the Black Hills of SD I can get the same level of service that is offered in the nation's largest cities. Heck I can even get the same level of service out on my parent's ranch which is 10 miles away from a town of 850 people.

AT&T can't compete with that and why not? I would say it must be poor planning or they have just decided that we are not worthy of a high level of service. Personally I find that appalling. AT&T thinks us rural folks are second class citizens. I receive the same level of speed and service (better in some cases) from my cable provider as people in the large metro areas do and I feel cellular service should be the same.

I can't support a corporation that treats me as a second class citizen. People who live in big cities wouldn't understand the feeling, but I do and I bet there are about 80 million more people that feel the same way.

 

[icyfire]

Because I used the 1st Gen iPhone and so did more than 500,000 people and no one complained about EDGE. Sure we all wished for fasters speeds, but we always thought we had Jesus' cellphone on our hands. We wanted 3G knowing that coverage wasn't there yet, and look, we got it. Now, we (yes we) who owned a 1st Gen iPhone do not complain at all about AT&T. (Except many NYC/SFB people, that I understand). The iPhone never needed 3G to function, EDGE made it all possible and sufficient browsing experience for a quick look. Remember, that was the selling point on the iPhone. Look something up quickly on your phone and enjoy your movies. It was never meant as a replacement of your laptop or desktop browsing experience. Don't mention the App Store's data hog apps, because Apple is pitching those apps, the games and features of that on the iPod Touch. iPhone is being pitched with mobile stuff, quick buy, mobile business apps. Nothing that is data intensive. Hence, EDGE will be fine and is fine in majority cases.

Once again, this is a moot point to this argument (coverage).

I disagree. I believe that 3G speeds for smartphone use are essential in this day and age, not just something that's nice to have as an additional feature. I'm sure there are many Europeans and Asian smartphone users who would laugh at someone claiming that EDGE is "good enough".

Yes and no. AT&T will allow you to roam freely but you have to behave (according to them). No over usage of the plan on roaming.

I have to "behave"? You'd think that a company who has such poor rural coverage would at least allow their customers to roam freely, but I guess that just cuts into their bottom line a little too much for comfort. Again, the roaming situation is just another example of how ATT treats their customers like crap. Why does Verizon allow their customers to roam without any restrictions? Don't get me wrong, Verizon isn't the most benevolent company by any stretch with their restrictions over phone selection over the years. But at least they have significantly improved their phone selection and are releasing some decent phones in the near future while ATT has just been feeding off their iPhone contract with no concessions to customers.

EV-DO Rev 0 is almost on par in real speeds with EDGE. However, Verizon has Rev A almost all over, so it's a moot point. Yes, EV-DO Rev A is faster than EDGE obviously. However, they both suffer from that handicap of talk/surf.

I'd rather have more reliable coverage than talk/surf. Of course, I'd like both, but reliable coverage that I can depend on beats all else in priority. My house is actually very well covered by ATT 3G (I live in central NJ) but I've heard pretty bad stories from friends with the iPhone regarding reliability which has turned me off from switching to ATT.

 

[Applejuiced]

I hear you.
You gotta go with whatever works. I'd do the same if I was in the same boat.
Corporations like AT&T and many others care about money and not so much that they consider areas with 850 population 2nd class but they prioritize denser populated areas with more income potential.

 

[jav6454]

Just because some of us choose to live in an area with more trees and less concrete doesn't mean we don't deserve good service. I am sitting in one of the most beautiful areas in the US, but since it is not highly populated AT&T won't take the time to provide service. Verizon does. Verizon not only provides service, but also provides an excellent 3G service. In a city of 4,500 tucked in the Black Hills of SD I can get the same level of service that is offered in the nation's largest cities. Heck I can even get the same level of service out on my parent's ranch which is 10 miles away from a town of 850 people.

AT&T can't compete with that and why not? I would say it must be poor planning or they have just decided that we are not worthy of a high level of service. Personally I find that appalling. AT&T thinks us rural folks are second class citizens. I receive the same level of speed and service (better in some cases) from my cable provider as people in the large metro areas do and I feel cellular service should be the same.

I can't support a corporation that treats me as a second class citizen. People who live in big cities wouldn't understand the feeling, but I do and I bet there are about 80 million more people that feel the same way.

That's right it doesn't mean so, however, if a company doesn't want to sell you x service there, then you know better than to buy x service and hope it works.

I never said AT&T can't compete with that, it also may not be poor planning, but just it is not on schedule first.

You assume there are 80 Million that feel that way, but remember, not everyone is as tech savy and not everyone wants an iPhone with 3G in those areas. Many people are just happy with making a call.

I disagree. I believe that 3G speeds for smartphone use are essential in this day and age, not just something that's nice to have as an additional feature. I'm sure there are many Europeans and Asian smartphone users who would laugh at someone claiming that EDGE is "good enough".

I have to "behave"? You'd think that a company who has such poor rural coverage would at least allow their customers to roam freely, but I guess that just cuts into their bottom line a little too much for comfort. Again, the roaming situation is just another example of how ATT treats their customers like crap. Why does Verizon allow their customers to roam without any restrictions? Don't get me wrong, Verizon isn't the most benevolent company by any stretch with their restrictions over phone selection over the years. But at least they have significantly improved their phone selection and are releasing some decent phones in the near future while ATT has just been feeding off their iPhone contract with no concessions to customers.

I'd rather have more reliable coverage than talk/surf. Of course, I'd like both, but reliable coverage that I can depend on beats all else in priority. My house is actually very well covered by ATT 3G (I live in central NJ) but I've heard pretty bad stories from friends with the iPhone regarding reliability which has turned me off from switching to ATT.

You believe does not make it you need. As you said, it is a nice feature, not something you really need. Euros and Japanese people got 3G way before (back in 2000) so they don't know nor never knew what EDGE was (their carriers jumped from GPRS to UMTS skipping EDGE).

No it is not. If Verizon were paying high fees for you to roam at your current plan, they would tell you, don't roam that much. AT&T isn't charity and neither is Verizon.

Also, you have "heard" of bad stories? Your house is will covered? Why not experience it yourself? There is a 30-day trial period with AT&T to see if you are happy. First test, then talk. Don't come yapping here saying how AT&T sucks and you have never ever tried them. I say Verizon sucks because I tried them, and they were horrible. Never going back there. AT&T has got me covered since 2006 and I haven't been happier.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

AT&T can't compete with that and why not? I would say it must be poor planning or they have just decided that we are not worthy of a high level of service.

Long story short verizon and sprint have had a head start spreading their service and now carriers like at&t are just catching up.

AT&T thinks us rural folks are second class citizens.

Just about every industry considers rural area 2nd class.

I can't support a corporation that treats me as a second class citizen. People who live in big cities wouldn't understand the feeling, but I do and I bet there are about 80 million more people that feel the same way.

Your anger is misplaced. Go yell at verizon for thinking their customers did not need an iphone.

And no ~88m people do not agree with you; Most of those people would be perfectly happy on att.

 

[kdarling]

People forget that back when Verizon chose a CDMA air protocol, there were probably only a couple of million GSM users on the planet and they were using the simpler TDMA air protocol. Higher tech countries like Japan were choosing CDMA. So it was by no means clear which way to go.

However, even back in the 1990s, cell engineers already knew that everyone would have to migrate to a CDMA air protocol to get 3G capacities. For CDMA2000 networks this 3G CDMA protocol is EVDO. For GSM networks 3G uses W-CDMA (sometimes misspoken as UMTS-3G, because it's the primary UMTS-3G radio protocol in use).

So Verizon decided to spend the extra money and start with CDMA radios from the beginning. That's why it was much easier for them to upgrade to 3G across their entire footprint a half decade ago. (Their original plan was to upgrade to later EVDO revisions with more speed and voice+data, but those seem to be on hold with the move to LTE.)

ATT chose GSM because it was less expensive and easier to deploy at first. However, in order to move to 3G they're having to add CDMA radios to all their sites (and also add sites because CDMA requires different planning). It is a long, expensive process. Basically they're overlaying a CDMA network on top of their original GPRS one. (Just as each GSM smartphone must have both radios.) The advantage is that they're using a wider bandwidth CDMA protocol and thus get higher speeds and data+voice.

Note: don't get confused. CDMA2000 EVDO radios are not compatible with GSM UMTS-3G radios. But they both derive from the same primary CDMA concepts.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

^true but the qualcomms managment of their cdma technology drove others into staying with tdma and then making a competing cdma technology.

 

[jav6454]

^true but the qualcomms managment of their cdma technology drove others into staying with tdma and then making a competing cdma technology.

What he said. Also, GSM allowed better speeds and more open upgrades than CDMA.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

What he said. Also, GSM allowed better speeds and more open upgrades than CDMA.

umm you are wrong.

I has already been explain above.
GSM 3G is CDMA (W-CDMA) but close enough.\\

Verizon choose to fork out the money first with CDMA way back when which allowed for quicker and cheaper upgrades down the road which for Verizon was mostly a software update. They are reaping the benefits of it now as they already upgraded their network for 3G speeds.
AT&T and T-Mobile are having to go back and retro fit older towers and build new ones.

The world is moving to a CDMA type of signal.