ATT has ammended the lawsuit to include the Misfit Toys ad.
AT&T adds Verizon's Island of Misfit Toys holiday ads to lawsuit, demands they be yanked off the air
ATT describing Misfit Toys ad said:
ATT Sues VZW (update suits dropped)
- Thread starter meStevo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 99
- Views 11K
ATT has ammended the lawsuit to include the Misfit Toys ad.
AT&T adds Verizon's Island of Misfit Toys holiday ads to lawsuit, demands they be yanked off the air
Well Verizons map is also Bullsh!t, I live right around the corner from maple grove raceway, the verizon mao shows the whole state of Pennsylvania being 3g can't get a 3g signal from verizon within a 3 mile radius. ATT and T-mobile 3g are fine.
I imagine there's probably a good reason for it, most ATT customers agree that even ATT's map is horrid, as you can cycle through network quality well within a covered area just over the course of walking several feet.
The maps compare what the 2 companies represent their networks as... which is accurate. The lawsuit is not valid.
The maps compare what the 2 companies represent their networks as... which is accurate. The lawsuit is not valid.
Well it is not in town digging, but along a lot of the highways around here and at cell towers. I live in an Edge area, in the ATT backwater white space. Most of the towers look like they use a microwave relay system right now.
There is something about the map that is misleading. Even though Verizon has a larger 3G geographic coverage area, more people get better 3G service through ATT. This is due to the fact that ATT has more 3G towers in the larger populated areas.
For example, in my area, Verizon phones get a lot more 3G dead zones. ATT has many more towers in my area (They just put another tower exactly 1 mile from my house.) This means that each Verizon 3G tower gets more use per tower than ATT, thus more likely to overload and slowdown.
IOW, ATT focuses on putting more towers closer together in fewer highly populated areas, where Verizon focuses on spreading their towers out to cover a greater geographic area.
For example, in my area, Verizon phones get a lot more 3G dead zones. ATT has many more towers in my area (They just put another tower exactly 1 mile from my house.) This means that each Verizon 3G tower gets more use per tower than ATT, thus more likely to overload and slowdown.
IOW, ATT focuses on putting more towers closer together in fewer highly populated areas, where Verizon focuses on spreading their towers out to cover a greater geographic area.
Interesting.
But I must note, in WV near Falling Waters, near the I-81 & I-70 crossing, AT&T has expanded service. I used to barely be able to make a phone call. Now I've got good 3G data service for my laptop with data dongle.
Gotta hand it to Verizon, though- great success for marketing. Now let's see if AT&T can make a volume or reliability claim or some such to counter them
But I must note, in WV near Falling Waters, near the I-81 & I-70 crossing, AT&T has expanded service. I used to barely be able to make a phone call. Now I've got good 3G data service for my laptop with data dongle.
Gotta hand it to Verizon, though- great success for marketing. Now let's see if AT&T can make a volume or reliability claim or some such to counter them
They have to do this due to the technology difference between CDMA and GSM technology. The cost of covering a rural area is significantly higher in rural areas for GSM than CDMA because the towers have to be closer together with GSM. However, even in metro areas, GSM will often be brought to it's knees with an increase of population density such as a stadium event or a trade show, even a traffic jam on the highway. This is the major issue with GSM technology. We see this every year at CES as well as here in town during an NFL game- CDMA users like Verizon and Sprint have no trouble while ATT and T-mobile users can't make calls. As an event is repeated, the companies AT&T and T-Mobile just bite the bullet and improve the density of those towers within the repeated density change locations. Meanwhile CDMA companies have the luxury of simply increasing the spread of their geography into those rural regions not previously covered.
There is no simple answer to this other than a broad statement that CDMA will be better if you travel around the nation while GSM will be lower cost for basic service due to lower licensing costs. If you don't travel much and GSM works well in your seat, stick with it.
Plus, there is no truth to having a CDMA based provider and not being able to use the phone in foreign countries. Verizon will supply a phone for you wherever you need to travel and in many cases the phone will have service ( CDMA ) in countries that "aren't listed as compatible. That happened to me in Grand Cayman and in the Bahamas.
Can you point us to some documentation on this? I've done a comparison test here with an iphone, and my XV6800 downloaded a large video file (78Mb) 40% faster than the iphone side by side. I don't even consider this location very good for Verizon EVDO. I've been in locations like Washington DC where EVDO Rev A was downloading at 2.4 Mbs. Here, I only get 1.3 Mbs
No...It is mostly anecdotal. Dodger stadium, Anaheim stadium, local area, hiking through the mountains, ex. Those of us with ATT had fewer problems with service than those of us with Verizon.
Sure they will. Or you could get another phone when you arrive in Europe. Or pre-order one, as I did back when Cingular was TDMA. The point is, it's not as convenient as using your own phone, set up the way you like it, with your phone # list.
Having a GSM tri or quad band phone means you can use your own phone in a large majority of places in the world. CDMA doesn't support that. They replace your phone. I hope you somehow keep your same phone number.
GSM is the standard in Europe and much of the world. And that allows for better coverage in those areas where GSM is standard. No cell towers of no use to you.
That's what I like about the new HTC Touch Pro 2. It has capability for both. I may be doing a vacation in Europe before I need a new phone so this was a consideration albeit a minor one.
It's about time the mfg's make phones capable of all systems.
navychop- It is ironic, though... Back when I had T-Mobile, I was in southern Mexico and discovered my phone didn't work. Called T-Mobile from a pay phone and learned they had to send a signal to the phone to make it work out of the US. I had to wait until I returned to US to get the phone updated for foreign connections, even in GSM territory. I discovered many subscribers were unaware of this until they made their first trip and found out like I did. All is not as simple as those who never try it would have you believe!
It's about time the mfg's make phones capable of all systems.
navychop- It is ironic, though... Back when I had T-Mobile, I was in southern Mexico and discovered my phone didn't work. Called T-Mobile from a pay phone and learned they had to send a signal to the phone to make it work out of the US. I had to wait until I returned to US to get the phone updated for foreign connections, even in GSM territory. I discovered many subscribers were unaware of this until they made their first trip and found out like I did. All is not as simple as those who never try it would have you believe!
You are correct. I have had to call, several times, to turn on/off international access. Usually before they left the states. But I successfully got one turned on for that feature for someone in the UK after they got there. Of course, we pay thousands per month on our cell bills, that might have gotten us a bit more attention.
So you have not real proof and outside of the several professional reviewers commenting on AT&T issues in California, NY, and Chicago you are the one exception to the norm.
Well, if in the area in which I use the phone over 90% of the time gets better coverage with ATT than Verizon, why would I be concerned about other regions?
Because they want AT&T to be the worse provider for everybody. They hate it when AT&T is actually a good choice for many people.
I don't hate AT&T as much as i dislike Verizon. I find if funny that when professional (phonedog,Mobileburn,Cnet,ETC) for over the years make a note of how poor AT&T network performs in California, yet people who own a iPhone are either blind or don't care because they have an iPhone, it makes you wonder. I know of places where I had issues with Verizon wireless services dropping calls. I had issues with my 8900 on AT&T network for simply making calls. I had issues with my Sprint service dropping data down to 1xrt. To simply not acknowledge is problem is 100% fan boy.
Verizon has responded to the lawsuit in writing.
Verizon responds to AT&T's Map For That lawsuit: 'the truth hurts'
Verizon responds to AT&T's Map For That lawsuit: 'the truth hurts'
Yikes! I don't have horse in this race since I am with Sprint, but AT&T is clearly going to have their lame argument rejected by the court.
The problem is that if ATT does not get an injunction they may as well give up on the lawsuit since a trial will be a year or two out...
What I would like to see is ATT say we are doubling down and investing 2x in 2010 - $40 billion and rolling out 3G/4G nationwide and be done with it...
What I would like to see is ATT say we are doubling down and investing 2x in 2010 - $40 billion and rolling out 3G/4G nationwide and be done with it...
Similar threads
