Originally Posted by JasonCz
It is 100% pertinent. People don't make housing decisions based on mobile coverage, so yes, it is AT&Ts fault that they live in an area without AT&T coverage.
Posting the comparison of speeds (like the one floating around above) is totally worthless. That comparison is only applicable for someone standing in the exact same location as the tester. Great.
Originally Posted by Axon14
What? Obviously you don't know this, but I live in NYC - Manhattan specifically. Yes, I expect my service to work perfectly in the most major metro area in the United States. I pay for that and I should get it. It is entirely AT&T's fault that their tower network is so limited that they can't even provide 3G - now a fully mature tech - in Midtown manhattan. Hell, they tried to sell
me a device that would improve my network coverage by plugging into an active internet connection. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/te...cell.html?_r=1
Why should I pay more for coverage I'm already paying for?
Either way I don't get your point. If you promote yourself as offering coverage in over 96% of America, I would expect your service to not only work, but work at or close to capacity at all times.
So you all just basically proved that you didn't do your research on the wireless companies before making a wireless provider decision.
If you move, and it's that much of a bother, then change your wireless provider. It's still not their fault. They put maps on their site of where their coverage is. Still not their fault. Blaming a company for not having 3G in your area because you think they should is a stupid assumption and just proves you're missing a critical aspect in logic and reasoning.
And they advertise their coverage in general in 96% of America. Not 3G. You still get Edge where you live, I bet, which is actually competitive with Verizon's 3G speeds. They're not lying when they talk about their coverage, but for you to just assume that they have 3G in that 96% because they say that, just further proves you didn't do research before choosing.
Originally Posted by bluedevil
Your comment is irrelevant. When a company markets that they have a high speed data network, when they don't is just plain lying. As far as caring about customers, why would AT&T report record breaking profits and put up this kind of numbers as far as investing back into the network? Cause they don't care about the user experience.
Lets just let the numbers do the talking.
How much did AT&T invest back into their network?
How much did VZW invest back into their network?
Now that's putting up new cell sites, putting in more data infrastructures, as well as minimal downtime. Keep in mind, VZW is doing all this while deploying it's 4G LTE network. So while on VZW 3G (CDMA), the speeds are slower than that of AT&Ts HSPA+, but the service is more widely available. So with that said, yes I will trade speed for readability any day.
The first part of your posts states they're lying about having a high speed network and then in the end you say it's slower than Verizon's. Is that to say Verizon is lying when they claim that have a high speed network as well? You say they're not reliable, but for every person like you, there are 4 AT&T customers to refute that statement and say they have absolutely no problems with AT&T.