Why is everyone in a rush to switch to Verizon?

[mpossoff]

The only thing I can think is that lots of people were so sold on the iPhone 4 that they bought one even though they did not have good AT&T coverage where they normally live, work and travel.

People are always buying devices they think are great, but which do not really have the best coverage for them.

AT&T has very good coverage for the population in general, covering most of the concentrations of population.

But it's an indisputable fact that if you have to do a lot of travelling, your chances of always finding coverage are the best with Verizon. Verizon's not perfect, not by a long shot...but if you need geographic coverage more than you need high speed connectivity, then it's entirely possible that Verizon's just a better choice.

In current state I agree. However if AT&T is going to go through it's 3G expansion then they will be very close to Verizon, although Verizon even in AT&T's expansion will still have more 3G coverage.

Why do you think AT&T wasn't able to keep up toe to toe with Verizon 3G coverage?

 

[Reaper0bot0]

AT&T has simply taken a "meh, this is good enough" approach to 3G coverage. They've focused on where most people live. That's better than some others have done, I'll grant. That said, I was able to find places not at all far from home where I lacked 3G when I had AT&T.

Higher speeds are nice and all, but consistency and good enough speeds matter more to me than an occasionally faster connection. AT&T was shoveling money as quickly as possible to Apple, and (while I contend not nearly enough) a lot of money on improving network capacity if not actually expanding their geographical footprint. People often conflate the two separate issues AT&T has had:

1) Poor capacity in a lot of areas (they have had some success with this).
2) Poor 3G build-out (they have done some work, and supposedly are in the process of doing a good deal more).

I think they've focused on the first because they decided that the largest clusters of unhappy customers were in those congested areas, not travelling between those points. That's logical enough, but the disparity between AT&T and Verizon's 3G buildouts is rather obvious if you look at a map. I am often amazed AT&T ever allowed this to happen.

 

[mpossoff]

AT&T has simply taken a "meh, this is good enough" approach to 3G coverage. They've focused on where most people live. That's better than some others have done, I'll grant. That said, I was able to find places not at all far from home where I lacked 3G when I had AT&T.

Higher speeds are nice and all, but consistency and good enough speeds matter more to me than an occasionally faster connection. AT&T was shoveling money as quickly as possible to Apple, and (while I contend not nearly enough) a lot of money on improving network capacity if not actually expanding their geographical footprint. People often conflate the two separate issues AT&T has had:

1) Poor capacity in a lot of areas (they have had some success with this).
2) Poor 3G build-out (they have done some work, and supposedly are in the process of doing a good deal more).

I think they've focused on the first because they decided that the largest clusters of unhappy customers were in those congested areas, not travelling between those points. That's logical enough, but the disparity between AT&T and Verizon's 3G buildouts is rather obvious if you look at a map. I am often amazed AT&T ever allowed this to happen.

I am too amazed that AT&T has allowed this to happen myself. It's not like they don't have the money, the have shed loads of cash.

I live in Philadelphia and AT&T is superb here. Verizon is superb as well. The main difference in the Philly area is noticeable data speeds. In most cases Verizon isn't even close to AT&T data speeds in Philly.

However I see the point of reliability in regards to one that travels. I would say Verizon has AT&T beat in that regard.

Another however is preference. If you are a data hungry 3G user and live in Philly then AT&T might be your best choice for speed.

If you travel alot then Verizon probably is your better choice for reliability.

 

[saberahul]

The way I see it: It's better to have a reliable service than to have faster speeds at some places... there is use in speed when there is no coverage to provide it.

 

[mpossoff]

The way I see it: It's better to have a reliable service than to have faster speeds at some places... there is use in speed when there is no coverage to provide it.

If you have fast speeds then coverage must be good.

Like I said AT&T is very reliable in Philly and 3G speeds are fast. I don't think one would experience fast 3G without reliability in a specific area/region. I had a Droid X for 30 days recently. On my iPhone I average 2.9 Mbps upload, 1.5 Mbps download. With the Droid X I averaged 1.25 Mbps upload, 1.00 Mbps download. A very noticeable difference.

First we have to define reliability. In regards to 3G reliability means more coverage in the USA which Verizon seems to have right now. However in my area I would say there is no king but the king of speed is AT&T. Remember you are talking to an AT&T customer who has very reliable coverage in my area and I know Verizon counterparts experience equal reliability as well.