Verizon stretches truth in ads

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by nehunte, Oct 19, 2009.

  1. nehunte macrumors 6502

    nehunte

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    #1
    So I'm sure most of you have seen the ads on tv talking about the difference between AT&T's 3G and Verizon's 3G. Let me preface this thread by saying that Verizon does have the better 3G coverage, but the ads are misleading. And that really bugs the hell outta me.

    Most consider EVDO the true 3G component on CDMA networks (Verizon & Sprint). The truth is that the International Telecommunication Union identifies 3G as networks with downloads speeds of 348 kps and it would appear that this is what Verizon is using in their ads.

    While CDMA2000 can reach 3G speeds, most don't consider CDMA2000 a 3G technology. AT&T's EDGE network reaches anywhere between 170-200 kps. However, AT&T has their 'FINE EDGE' network that can reach up to 348kps, which is considered by the ITU as 3G speeds. However, AT&T has chosen not to list those towers as part of their 3G network since they don't offer what they consider 3G speeds.

    In these ads, Verizon has clearly mapped out the combination of their EVDO and CDMA2000 networks to make their map look huge. In comparison, they only show AT&T's HSDPA (3G) coverage area. I don't know about you, but I find it pretty shady. Maybe it's not a big deal, but at least this will open the eyes of a few of you. Below is a map Verizon's true 3G coverage area. Once again, I understand that it is bigger than AT&T's. I'm just not a big fan of deception through advertising.

    Verizon's actual EVDO coverage
    Picture1.jpg

    Verizon's advertised 3G coverage
    Picture2.jpg
     
  2. helloimD4NNY macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
  3. nehunte thread starter macrumors 6502

    nehunte

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    #3
    I've unfortunately worked in this kind of stuff for way too long and know more about it than I wish to know.
     
  4. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
  5. nehunte thread starter macrumors 6502

    nehunte

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    #5
    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.
     
  6. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #6
    There is a slight problem though:
    That's what it was in 2005, there is no way that's what it is now. Your credibility has taken a turn for the worse. I agree that they don't have an iPhone killer brewing, but better ev.
     
  7. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #7
  8. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #8
  9. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Cabin by a lake
    #9
    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.
     
  10. nehunte thread starter macrumors 6502

    nehunte

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    #10
    For the first 6 months that I owned the iPhone, my house was only around EDGE towers until the recent upgrade to 3G. I have the speedtest.net app on my iPhone. I ran the app a few times while connected to EDGE, and both times were over 348kps download.

    You mention that it is an "average" of 59kps. What's to say that it doesn't jump a little higher than that? Maybe that's what happened when I ran the speedtest app. Thoughts?
     
  11. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #11
    Advertisers stretching the "facts" to paint their product in a more favorable light - SAY IT ISN'T SO! :eek:
     
  12. nehunte thread starter macrumors 6502

    nehunte

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    #12
  13. nehunte thread starter macrumors 6502

    nehunte

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    #13
    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.
     
  14. thetexan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #14
    The OP posted a Verizon 3G map from 2005, and that map from nearly 5 years ago still looks like it beats AT&T's map today. FAIL!
     
  15. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Cabin by a lake
    #15
    The speedtest was either giving incorrect results, or you were accidentally on WiFi or something. It's simply not possible for the iPhone to go faster than 236Kbps on EDGE.

    By average, I mean 48-61Kbps. For calculations you use 59.2Kbps per slot.
    For Class 12 devices like the iPhone, you multiply that speed times four slots.

    Each slot, btw, is 4.6ms long. Voice is usually assigned to one slot. Therefore the radio turns on and off at a rate of 1/.0046 = 217 Hz. That power burst is what causes the infamous GSM buzz sound in nearby speakers.

    As for Verizon coverage, the reason why they're so far ahead is because they chose CDMA from the start. This not only meant that dropped calls are very rare, but they could move to CDMA-3G very easily.

    GSM carriers, on the other hand, were using the TDMA/EDGE slot based method, and therefore have to physically add CDMA (WCDMA) radios to each cell site to get 3G.
     
  16. COBRASVT macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    #16
    I'm sorry guys/gals, but if you've used them both, you KNOW who has the better network! Period..hands down!

    I never had a serious problem with call quality and network availability until I came over to AT&T.....PERIOD!

    If Verizon had or ever get's the iPhone, I'd / I'll be gone!!!!!
     
  17. Mr. Giver '94 macrumors 68000

    Mr. Giver '94

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #17
    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.

    These new map ads are like them announcing cell coverage in Antarctica. :rolleyes:
     
  18. LinMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #18
    There are a couple of problems with this thread:

    1) The 2005 map does not include Alltel coverage that was added when Verizon purchased Alltel.

    2) Verizon has expanded their network considerably in the last 4 years so even ignoring the Alltel areas the map would be significantly different.

    3) EDGE is 2.5G while UMTS/HSPDA/EVDO are 3G.
     
  19. JUSTQUAN macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    #19
    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.
     
  20. oammi2 macrumors newbie

    oammi2

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    #20
    One thing everyone is forgetting is that AT&T has made an agreement with verizon to share all of their towers between the two companies so the coverage should be the same.
     
  21. hsk macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #21
    Uh, like to see a link on this one. :rolleyes:
     
  22. nehunte thread starter macrumors 6502

    nehunte

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    #22
    Yeah.... I don't think so.
     
  23. nateo200 macrumors 68030

    nateo200

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Location:
    Northern District NY
    #23
    What?! That could be the worst post In here yet! Sources NAO. Also AT&T and verizon do share towers but not all of them not even close. Additionally the hardware mounted on those towers is not equal. So for example let's say an AT&T tower has GSM 1900 and UMTS 850 allowing for great coverage for AT&T users but the verizon hardware only is 1xRTT 1900 with no EVDO...not equal coverage by far. There's a node b 600 feet from my house, five bars of 3G on AT&T but all I get from my house is 4 bars of 1x on verizon.....(i'm in the middle of two HUGE cell towers and it is either full bars of EVDO or nothing...)

    Well I would honestly look at the infastructure in the Midwest before posting...when I say Wisconsin most people don't think of anything being there...however if you have ever been to some areas around there like Milwaukee you know that good cell coverage is important.

    Not really...with AT&T you can use a wide variety of GSM phones...IMO phones sold by the carrier are really only part of the selection andits that way in the rest of the world that uses GSM....
     
  24. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Cabin by a lake
    #24
    Perhaps you were thinking of the fact that Sprint users can roam on Verizon towers?
     
  25. Blueline29 macrumors 68020

    Blueline29

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Location:
    Windermere, FL
    #25
    Um, yes, they do. Just because someone doesn't live in one of the largest cities in the country doesn't make him or her a second-class citizen who doesn't "deserve" cell coverage. Geez.
     

Share This Page