Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hah
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 20:20:00 -
[1]
The verizon commercials point out how their coverage extends over much much more of the US than ATTs.
ATT had a counter argument commercial showing similar maps as the verizon then brought up points, at at each point the map started falling apart. Their points were 1. ATT has more popular phones, 2 ATT is itself more popular, 3. ATT has faster network speeds.
How are those points any argument for ATT being better when Verizon has much better coverage. So lets see... should I go ATT for slightly faster network speeds and a cooler phone or verizon, so I can actually access the network and use my just as nice phone.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 20:36:00 -
[2]
my view is that att has coverage where people live, verizion has the same coverage plus a lot more in bumble**** nowhere.
I haven't really compared the two maps all that well, but from what I saw in the commercial both have lots of coverage near where I live, and near large population centers.
so unless you either live in the middle of nowhere, or drive for a living probably fine with either.
|
Zindela
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 22:06:00 -
[3]
I have the Motorola Droid, from Verizon, and in my experience, I have virtually identical download speeds as the people I know who have iPhones. I also get service that stays fast even when in a major sporting arena with 100k other people. The iPhones then take much longer to load the same pages as me. I also get service is the middle of nowhere. Plus, the Android OS is pretty awesome.
|
Hah
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 22:25:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton my view is that att has coverage where people live, verizion has the same coverage plus a lot more in bumble**** nowhere.
I haven't really compared the two maps all that well, but from what I saw in the commercial both have lots of coverage near where I live, and near large population centers.
so unless you either live in the middle of nowhere, or drive for a living probably fine with either.
Thing is though, they dont even have more coverage 'where people live' because in general through out the US people dont live in the city. more commute than live there. So saying 'where people live' is in cities, than that cuts off a great deal of america and honestly is pretty ignorant.
I myself dont live in a city,I live in a town. relatively small. around the center att has coverage,other than that not much. verizon has coverage EVERYWHERE around here... even out in the middle of the country where no one lives. and thats a great thing for safety. lets say your hiking, camping, hunting or just doing something outdoors. having a life line is nice... att cant provide that
|
Awesome Possum
Imperium Signal Corps
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 22:42:00 -
[5]
1. Verizon has greater 3G coverage than ATT, thats it. 2. ATT has greater coverage over all, than Verizon. 3. ATT does have better phones, except iPhones which suck... die mac lovers.
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
yfz3r0
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 23:14:00 -
[6]
/me pets his Droid. Let them talk
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 23:23:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Hah
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton my view is that att has coverage where people live, verizion has the same coverage plus a lot more in bumble**** nowhere.
I haven't really compared the two maps all that well, but from what I saw in the commercial both have lots of coverage near where I live, and near large population centers.
so unless you either live in the middle of nowhere, or drive for a living probably fine with either.
Thing is though, they dont even have more coverage 'where people live' because in general through out the US people dont live in the city. more commute than live there. So saying 'where people live' is in cities, than that cuts off a great deal of america and honestly is pretty ignorant.
I myself dont live in a city,I live in a town. relatively small. around the center att has coverage,other than that not much. verizon has coverage EVERYWHERE around here... even out in the middle of the country where no one lives. and thats a great thing for safety. lets say your hiking, camping, hunting or just doing something outdoors. having a life line is nice... att cant provide that
hmm now where did I say people mainly live in cities?
as for the rest of your stuff, well you are starting to sound like a verizon advertiser.
|
Hah
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 23:40:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Hah
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton my view is that att has coverage where people live, verizion has the same coverage plus a lot more in bumble**** nowhere.
I haven't really compared the two maps all that well, but from what I saw in the commercial both have lots of coverage near where I live, and near large population centers.
so unless you either live in the middle of nowhere, or drive for a living probably fine with either.
Thing is though, they dont even have more coverage 'where people live' because in general through out the US people dont live in the city. more commute than live there. So saying 'where people live' is in cities, than that cuts off a great deal of america and honestly is pretty ignorant.
I myself dont live in a city,I live in a town. relatively small. around the center att has coverage,other than that not much. verizon has coverage EVERYWHERE around here... even out in the middle of the country where no one lives. and thats a great thing for safety. lets say your hiking, camping, hunting or just doing something outdoors. having a life line is nice... att cant provide that
hmm now where did I say people mainly live in cities?
as for the rest of your stuff, well you are starting to sound like a verizon advertiser.
I wish i got paid
|
Liang Nuren
The Lollypop Factory
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 05:26:00 -
[9]
If they both have service where you live, the answer should be clear: go for the phone you like. I personally like the iphone waaay more than the Droid. I'm kinda confused too, because Google normally takes what someone else has and shinies it up and makes it pretty. But then they go release the Droid.... wtf
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Calvin Firenze
Minmatar Nex Exercitus IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 18:05:00 -
[10]
I have verizon, live in the city and sometimes it takes days to get a text/picture message someone sent me. Sometimes I don't even get it. The only reason I know is because I get the "hey did you get that picture I sent you" at work the next day.
They advertise the best coverage with no dead zones. I doubt if they can help it, but the hospital I work at has dead zones all over it.
ATT is far from perfect as well, I used to have their service when they advertised "fewer dropped calls." When I was with ATT, at least 1 in 3 of my calls were dropped even during off-peak hours.
At any rate, I've had better success with Verizon than I ever had with ATT. I don't feel like I'm paying for a crippled service I can barely use. Random problems aside, it works pretty well.
Originally by: Xanos Blackpaw some people need to have the stupid beaten out of them
|
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 18:54:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hah Thing is though, they dont even have more coverage 'where people live' because in general through out the US people dont live in the city. more commute than live there. So saying 'where people live' is in cities, than that cuts off a great deal of america and honestly is pretty ignorant.
79% of the US population lives in urban areas. That includes the metro area where AT&T has coverage just fine.
And remember the stink between AT&T and Verizon is over 3G coverage. You can still get a signal in other areas with AT&T...just not 3G.
I have AT&T and run into 3G deadzones all the time (although still get Edge coverage). I live near a major sporting venue and when there is a game on internet access drops to literally zero. I have also noted a few outright, no signal zones with AT&T and I live smackdab in the middle of a highly populated area of a major US city. That is pretty rare though here.
Personally I think AT&T's coverage sucks and I want to scream when I hear their ads touting the most advanced 3G network (whatever that means).
I have no experience with Verizon though so cannot say if it is better overall or not.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Death Bliss
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 20:43:00 -
[12]
I got the Motorola Droid for Verizon on christmas. On christmas we also drove up to ohio. I was on my new phone almost the whole way and had 3g all the way except in the middle of nowhere in West virginia (Coming from Charleston, SC)
Verizon has access in many more areas than ATT. And more 3g coverage from reading this thread.
|
Hah
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 11:43:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Death Bliss I got the Motorola Droid for Verizon on christmas. On christmas we also drove up to ohio. I was on my new phone almost the whole way and had 3g all the way except in the middle of nowhere in West virginia (Coming from Charleston, SC)
Verizon has access in many more areas than ATT. And more 3g coverage from reading this thread.
Hah nice you came through where I am, Ashland, KY
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |