Gotta love it when people with no idea of the history get on and argue this stuff. AT&T was running TDMA and had an expensive W-CDMA upgrade. And they did this while rolling out the iPhone and iPhone 3G which screwed things up for all the new iPhone users. AT&T was stuck and had to spend a crapload to get their network in shape and still never finished upgrading the rural areas.
Verizon on the other hand was sitting on a newly rolled out CDMA network and had all the advantages over AT&T. They had faster data and were able to more easily cover the rural areas with 3G.
Eventually W-CDMA overtook CDMA speed-wise. This is where we stand now and how AT&T got the edge over Verizon in the 3G areas. Yet they still refuse to invest in rural areas.
NOW, both carriers have to upgrade to LTE. And this means major capital expenditures for both. Don't kid yourself in thinking either carrier has an easier upgrade than the other. LTE is entirely new. But Verizon realized they didn't have the luxury of jumping to HSPA+ like AT&T so they jumped ahead on LTE. Best decision for them at the time.
And from what I understand, AT&T is the one hurting for bandwidth, not Verizon. It's their entire reason for buying T-Mobile.
As it stands now, looking at history, I would expect to see Verizon move rapidly with their expansion of LTE including rural areas.
If history tells us anything, AT&T will ignore rural areas because the cost per population coverage is too high.
This makes me continue to lean Verizon.
Edit: And anybody calling 1 Mbps slow as molasses must be smoking something. Please share.

That or they never used a 14.4 Kbps modem.
Edit2: Admittedly I could see it being very painful for large file uploads as you described. But this is not the norm for most ppl.
----------
I see Edge all the time. Especially when I travel and visit family. On occasion in my office.
----------
Think of it this way, does it take more money to upgrade/fix a beater car or a fairly new car?
No idea of what they are talking about? know their history, oh brother.
My marketing firm deals specifically in mobile networks, infrastructure, I deal directly with Verizon, ATT, Sprint, Samsung, Nortel, Nokia so I know the technology quite well. Better than most because I have too.
There is literally no fact or truth to what you are saying. None, zero.
Let me educate you.
First of all TDMA or Time division multiple access is totally different than WCDMA, or Wide band CDMA. And it isn't a upgrade from TDMA. Lol.
ATT had 3G up and running on WCDMA since 2005 which was UMTS.
They had EDGE before that in 2004 but that is only 2.5G. GSM was rolled out on the ATT network and Cingular which both are now the same company back in 2004. ATT wireless was acquired by Cingular wireless and rebranded to ATT mobility.
In 2004 GSM was the network for ATT and Cingular, not TDMA. TDMA was mostly phased out in 2004-2005. No new phones were sold as TDMA phones.
They were GSM,EDGE,UMTS phones. TDMA was basically non-extistant in 2007 when the iPhone was rolled out and had nothing to do with the original iPhone not having 3G. TDMA was completely phased out in early 2008 with people on 'legacy' phones. The network could not legally get rid of those people on that outdated network because of contracts.
The upgrade bath to 3G on GSM networks is GSM=GPRS=EDGE=UMTS=HSPA=HSUPA=HSPA+=LTE. In that order. TDMA has nothing to do with any one of those technologies.
Verizon when they rolled out their 3G network they rolled out CDMA2000 because it was available at the time and superior to UMTS which was out around the same time. Instead of waiting for the upgrade to UMTS which was WCDMA. Which is a superior technology and more advanced.
CDMA is not 3G CDMA2000 is the 3G version of CDMA. The upgrade path is UMB or (Ultra Mobile Broadband). Which is inferior to LTE, which is why Verizon upgraded to LTE which is a GSM technology.
More importantly ATT waited because they looked at the long term health of GSM vs CDMA. CDMA and GSM are not compatible networks. WCDMA and CDMA are not the same and not interchangeable. You are confused. Judgeing by your post. LTE is not I repeat not entirely 'new'. LTE has been around for more than a few years.
CDMA is not a GSM technology, LTE is. Verizon is essentially building a advanced GSM network from the ground up. ATT is not, they are upgrading to LTE from HSPA+ which both are a GSM technology.
LTE was developed by NTT Docomo way back in 2007 and commercially available in Sweden in 2009.
Apple left out 3G because the 3G chips at the time were large and drained a lot of battery life. A 3.5 screen and a 1st gen 3G chip meant the battery life of the original iPhone would be literally not existent or not up to Apple's standards. Not for the fantasy reasons you mentioned.
Apple's stance is that the iPhone gives you a slower than 3G solution with EDGE, that doesn't consume a lot of power,
http://www.anandtech.com/print/2274
ATT is investing more in big cities where Verizon actually has more spectrum. ATT is investing more in rural areas as the link I posted previously earlier in the thread would attest to.
Yes I used a 14.4 k modem, and yes in this day and age 1mps is molasses. And those speeds are real world 500Kps to 1Mps at best. Where as ATT is seeing with HSPA+ 5Mps to 10Mps real world speeds on their HSPA+ network right now. So yes, Verizons 3G network is slow in comparison.
Yes Version has to upgrade to LTE and fast or be left behind. ATT can take their time since LTE is backward compatible with GSM networks and ATT towers can be upgraded. Verizon has to set up new towers, so yes it is more expensive for them and will take more capital for them to upgrade their network to LTE than ATT. Don't kid yourself is right.
That is why ATT's LTE network is faster than Verizons almost twice as fast because they can use the data backhaul of their HSPA+ network. Verizon has no such backhaul.
Designed to be backwards-compatible with GSM and HSPA
http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/lte.htm
What Verizon is trying to do is fix up a old car, ATT is trying to fix up a newer car, so your analogy is accurate.