Verizon stretches truth in ads

[Kuddles]

FWIW,

I'm in Southern California and have a Blackberry Tour on Verizon and a 3GS on AT&T.


speedtest.net shows my Tour has almost 1mb faster DL speed than my 3GS..

 

[everettwolf]

Yank this thread

Either this thread should be yanked, the OP should yank the 2005 coverage map, or the site should be renamed macfabrications.com

Seriously, how did this get on here?

Two problems with credibility: 1) a seriously outdated Verizon coveage map used as a basis to a claim, 2) a claim by the same person of iPhone EDGE speeds that cannot physically happen.

 

[oammi2]

Perhaps you were thinking of the fact that Sprint users can roam on Verizon towers?

No I was referring to AT&T I work in the wireless division and we are working with Verizon to make all of the towers compatible. So yes all of the towers are now in use by both companies. Some do not have the proper modifications required to work with both networks but they will eventually all be ready to go.

 

[nateo200]

Perhaps you were thinking of the fact that Sprint users can roam on Verizon towers?

Idk. Speaking of that I heard there roaming agreements were really good and that you could have the same services no limitations even roaming on sprint...?..is that true I've been meaning to check up on that....

No I was referring to AT&T I work in the wireless division and we are working with Verizon to make all of the towers compatible. So yes all of the towers are now in use by both companies. Some do not have the proper modifications required to work with both networks but they will eventually all be ready to go.

Still like I said that won't be the case everywhere..see my previous post where inquoted you on page 1....

 

[verizamac]

nice post... but lets just put it to an end real fast ok??

they have a huge 3g coverage at&t doesnt

at&t has 3g talk through data verizon has.............EXACTLY!

we all have iphones which clearly they want and knew they ****ed up by not trying to compromise they have........EXACTLY!

verizon has a huge selection of phones over at&t but it doesnt matter because none of us is coming up off our iphones so....... yea.

topic done.

Since when did Verizon have a HUGE selection of phones? Where've you been, the island of misfit toys? AT&T has the largest selection of phones, they just happen to have the worst 3G coverage. People I know personally who own an iPhone have spotty 3G coverage in Connecticut, where I live. And, wrong, Droids are able to carry on a voice call and receive an email/text message, go online and look stuff up. My daughter and son-in-law have the Droid and they can do it. So get your facts straight, ATT FanBoy. The phone doesn't make the service, the service makes the phone. Verizon wins HANDS DOWN. iPhone or no iPhone I would never go to ATT.

 

[verizamac]

I'm having the worst time finding a map that's newer than the 2005 version. I'm sure they've added some towers here and there. However, I seem to be striking out. If you find a newer one, post it on here.

Oh, now it's an old map. So you're arguing an old map versus AT&T's new map. Still looks like "Old Verizon" has New AT&T beat, eh? You might not want to see the new Verizon map. AT&T's map might have shrunk like a guy coming out of a cold pool. Get back to us when you can supply a new map.

 

[verizamac]

Where did I start talking about an Iphone killer? That was never mentioned in the post.

People in this forum tend to complain about the inconsistency of data speeds while using their iPhones on the AT&T network. Yes, data speeds can be inconsistent with AT&T, and that really sucks. However, this new ad has came out and made it look 85% of the U.S. is fair game to pull major 3G data speeds and be super happy on the Verizon network. While that coverage is much better, it still represents an inconsistency of data speeds depending on where you're currently located.

What? Have you read what you posted? You write that "Yes, data speeds can be inconsistent with AT&T" then say "However, this new ad has came out and made it look 85% of the U.S. is fair game to pull major 3G data speeds and be super happy on the Verizon network." So which is it?

 

[sushi]

No offense to the mid-west, but do that many people need cell coverage in Kansas or Nebraska. Just because they have more states covered doesn't mean they have good or full coverage in all regions.

So you are saying that individuals in the Midwest don't need to communicate via cell phones?

Please remember that there are people who live in those wide open spaces, and they like to talk on their cell phones as well for business and pleasure.

 

[scaredpoet]

I was able to get current a Verizon EVDO-vs-CDMA200 1x (non-3g) coverage map. I can tell you, they don't make getting it particularly easy.

First off, you need to go to their coverage viewer. Which predictably, starts off with a static image of the familiar bleeding-red map we've all seen and gotten used to. Note however, that this map refers to "Digital" vs Analog Coverage, not "3G" vs 1xRTT or 2G coverage.

Then you need to select "Push To Talk." This is the ONLY map that Verizon has which clearly distinguishes between EVDO and CDMA2000 1xRTT coverage.

Note, the map image doesn't change. You have to enter an address, a city and state, or a zip code to get a zoomed-in map.

Then, you have to Zoom out to the National Level, and you get the map you're looking for. The dark green areas show 3G, CDMA2000 EVDO coverage. The light green shows CDMA2000 1xRTT coverage, which is the coverage in dispute here.

This is what the map looks like:

Interestingly... if you compare to the 2005 map... it looks to me like there's shockingly little difference between the two, setting aside the inclusion of the 1x coverage in the current map, save for some additional EVDO coverage in Oregon, Minnesota and North Dakota.


Here's the 2005 map again:

Verizon still has more "True" 3G coverage if you exclude EDGE, Fine EDGE and 1xRTT from both carrier's maps, though it doesn't looks as impressive for Verizon as simply dipping a map of the US in red paint.

So I guess I'm a little surprised that Verizon went all-in and bended the truth as far as possible, while AT&T refuses to play by the same bendy rules or say much of anything about it.

That's because EDGE does NOT go to 348 Kbps for the iPhone. Not even close.

EDGE has 8 voice or data timeslots per frame. Each timeslot is capable of contributing toward an average 59 Kbps.

The iPhone uses a Class 12 chip, which allows up to 4 timeslots in each direction, with a total limit of 5 timeslots at once. (E.g. 4 down + 1 up, or 3 down + 2 up, etc.)

So the maximum download or upload speed is 4 x 59 Kbps = 236 Kbps.

The problem with your argument would be that the speed limitations would point to the iPhone, not the network, being at issue. But, in your rabid zeal to blame AT&T for problems at all costs, I'm not at all surprised.

 

[toss002]

Fail!

You'll get people creating threads with no support or research, just except it. FAIL!

 

[kdarling]

Then you need to select "Push To Talk." This is the ONLY map that Verizon has which clearly distinguishes between EVDO and CDMA2000 1xRTT coverage.

That map is only for Push To Talk coverage and shows where even old 1XRTT phones can work, not where EVDO is absent. Agreed that it can be confusing.

If you want to see EVDO coverage, choose Broadband & VCast. The legend explains which areas are EVDO (Broadband) and which are not.

So I guess I'm a little surprised that Verizon went all-in and bended the truth as far as possible, while AT&T refuses to play by the same bendy rules or say much of anything about it.

The reason you're surprised, is because they did no such thing. Even AT&T did NOT refute the 3G coverage maps in their lawsuit. (I'm not sure why some people think they know more than AT&T.)

The problem with your argument would be that the speed limitations (of EDGE) would point to the iPhone, not the network, being at issue.

I should've made it clear that ATT doesn't support any higher EDGE speed than a theoretical max of 236Kbps.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Verizon's P2T sucks big time!!! It's almost unusable. Me and my coworkers end up just calling each other half the time instead of using their P2T garbage. When we was on Nextel it was perfect.

 

[realeric]

Then you need to select "Push To Talk." This is the ONLY map that Verizon has which clearly distinguishes between EVDO and CDMA2000 1xRTT coverage.

Verizon seems to be using only the EVDO map for their 3G coverage Ads. Left side of Texas and upper side of Kansas are covered by CDMA2000 1x based on the Push To Talk map, but Verizon's 3G ads does not include the areas.

 

[jav6454]

Are you all aware of the 3 month old thread you keep discussing? Also, the wrong maps being compared (ie 2005 version). In any case, I would like to bring attention to a little gem I found...

And, wrong, Droids are able to carry on a voice call and receive an email/text message, go online and look stuff up. My daughter and son-in-law have the Droid and they can do it. So get your facts straight, ATT FanBoy. The phone doesn't make the service, the service makes the phone. Verizon wins HANDS DOWN. iPhone or no iPhone I would never go to ATT.

Uhm, what? You do realize, as in a stated and known fact, that a short coming in CDMA technology is the fact that CDMA phones CAN NOT talk and surf the web on EV-DO? The only way to achieve this is if the phone has Wi-Fi on and connected; otherwise, it is not possible no matter who the carrier is (Vericrap or Sprint)

 

[SpitzerCR]

Is this all really so important?? If your happy your happy if your not your not..

 

[Warbrain]

Is this all really so important?? If your happy your happy if your not your not..

It is. There's an amount of deception occurring that people need to realize is happening.

 

[SpitzerCR]

It is. There's an amount of deception occurring that people need to realize is happening.

I agree with that part.. its the bickering back and forth about the coverage..

Lies need to be addressed but this who is better then who stuff is what gets old.

If that makes sense.

Sorry i didnt make that more clear in my original post.

 

[kdarling]

It is. There's an amount of deception occurring that people need to realize is happening.

There's no deception, just a lot of confusion by people trying to make up conspiracies that don't exist. Verizon spells out in their VZW vs ATT map here that they consider 3G to be something that at least averages 600Kbps and up. That leaves out both EDGE and 1X only areas.

If there was deception over what constitutes 3G coverage, AT&T would've brought it up. Yet as ATT stated in their lawsuit over the ad, they don't dispute the coverage maps at all:

"AT&T also acknowledges that Verizon's 3G network covers more geographical space than AT&Ts 3G network on a national basis, although AT&T's 3G network covers virtually all of the major population centers. "

"AT&T has no quarrel with Verizon advertising its larger 3G network."

... and later on...

"AT&T does not seek to stop Verizon from running its advertisements, nor does it seek to change the words Verizon uses in the advertisements."

(all they wanted was for the ATT map's white areas to be replaced by other colors)

Again, if AT&T doesn't dispute the maps, why do some people claim they know more than AT&T?

 

[AMG]

There's no deception, just a lot of confusion by people trying to make up conspiracies that don't exist. Verizon spells out in their VZW vs ATT map here that they consider 3G to be something that at least averages 600Kbps and up. That leaves out both EDGE and 1X only areas.

If there was deception over what constitutes 3G coverage, AT&T would've brought it up. Yet as ATT stated in their lawsuit over the ad, they don't dispute the coverage maps at all:


... and later on...



(all they wanted was for the ATT map's white areas to be replaced by other colors)

Again, if AT&T doesn't dispute the maps, why do some people claim they know more than AT&T?

I totally agree with you.

AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon's "There's A Map For That" advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon's ads are true and the truth hurts.

Source