The Real Coverage Maps For AT&T & Verizon
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=go ... »
http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coverageloc ... »
These maps reflect native network coverage. Since these maps show all network coverage and not just 3G, the Verizon maps are therefore false by their own admission.
http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coverageloc ... »
These maps reflect native network coverage. Since these maps show all network coverage and not just 3G, the Verizon maps are therefore false by their own admission.
...
Verizon's broadband coverage:
http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coverageloc ... »
seriously..
And the maps verizon is using are for 3g coverage, not for native coverage, or for voice coverage.
So the maps are not false, att is not even claiming that the maps are false. they are saying the adds are implying that phones don't work without 3g.
http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coverageloc ... »
seriously..
And the maps verizon is using are for 3g coverage, not for native coverage, or for voice coverage.
So the maps are not false, att is not even claiming that the maps are false. they are saying the adds are implying that phones don't work without 3g.
...
You'll also notice how the "blue" of the 3g map is practically the same as the prepaid "purple" coverage.
Add that prepaid coverage map to the Yellow in the broadband map (roaming EVDO) and you have the "there's a map for that" coverage map, whereas Att shows 3g and 2g data coverage as the same thing on their map.
Who's being more dishonest?
And on top of that, if Verizon was lying, wouldn't ATT and some consumer watch groups be suing them for coverage instead of ad wording?
Add that prepaid coverage map to the Yellow in the broadband map (roaming EVDO) and you have the "there's a map for that" coverage map, whereas Att shows 3g and 2g data coverage as the same thing on their map.
Who's being more dishonest?
And on top of that, if Verizon was lying, wouldn't ATT and some consumer watch groups be suing them for coverage instead of ad wording?
...
Congratulations, you make the Madmen look ethical. 90% of the Verizon "3G" coverage is much slower than any version of UMTS and about the same speed as EDGE, which is universal on AT&T's network. The only difference is that AT&T doesn't try to pull semantic bullshit to claim fairly slow service is 3G.
...
EVDO Rev A is 3g.
ATT (and consumer watchdog groups) ARE NOT contesting the claims of coverage, only that verizon is implying that phones will not work without 3g.
If verizon was lying about their coverage, or what they called 3g, ATT would sue them in a heartbeat. Think about it
ATT (and consumer watchdog groups) ARE NOT contesting the claims of coverage, only that verizon is implying that phones will not work without 3g.
If verizon was lying about their coverage, or what they called 3g, ATT would sue them in a heartbeat. Think about it
...
Menno said:
EVDO Rev A is 3g.
ATT (and consumer watchdog groups) ARE NOT contesting the claims of coverage, only that verizon is implying that phones will not work without 3g.
If verizon was lying about their coverage, or what they called 3g, ATT would sue them in a heartbeat. Think about it
They ARE suing them.
...
They are suing that Verizon is implying that phones will not be able to access data without 3g.
They are NOT suing over the coverage shown, or the "with 3g coverage 5 times larger" statements.
They are NOT suing over the coverage shown, or the "with 3g coverage 5 times larger" statements.
...
Correct. AT&T already knows they are going to hurt by this. It's AT&T's OWN fault 🤣 .
...
VZW611LA said:
Correct. AT&T already knows they are going to hurt by this. It's AT&T's OWN fault 🤣 .
Yeah, it's their fault that Verizon runs misleading commercials. Brilliant! 🙄
...
Menno said:
They are suing that Verizon is implying that phones will not be able to access data without 3g.
They are NOT suing over the coverage shown, or the "with 3g coverage 5 times larger" statements.
Sorry couldn't resist! You walked into that one! 🤣
Actually, if we're counting 1X as 3G and roaming, Sprint has the largest 3G coverage.
...
verizon is not counting 1x as roaming. 1x shows up when you toggle voice, when you toggle broadband, there are clearly visible areas that have voice coverage but do not have data coverage.
Please show otherwise.
Please show otherwise.
...
Menno said:
verizon is not counting 1x as roaming. 1x shows up when you toggle voice, when you toggle broadband, there are clearly visible areas that have voice coverage but do not have data coverage.
Please show otherwise.
They show ALL supposed 3G coverage. This includes roaming 3G, 1X and anything else they think they can get away with.
...
they do not call 1x as broadband access. This is known as "National Access" or "enhanced service/coverage area"
On their website they also distinguish between roaming and native coverage.
On their website they also distinguish between roaming and native coverage.
...
Menno said:
they do not call 1x as broadband access. This is known as "National Access" or "enhanced service/coverage area"
On their website they also distinguish between roaming and native coverage.
Are you kidding me? Many of the "red" areas won't get a signal at all.
Man, I'm telling you, one field trip for whatever court hears this case and it's all over for Verizon. They will wind up embarrassing themselves instead of AT&T.
...
The lawsuit is NOT that verizon lied about their coverage, it is that ATT is saying customers will imply that ATT doesn't have coverage where they don't have 3g.
a "field trip" will never happen because that's no the issue here.
Seriously, please tell me in the lawsuit where Att is saying Verizon lied about their 3g (let alone voice) coverage, or even where they are contesting the 5x larger claim. I would wait, but that hasn't done much as of yet since I told you much the same weeks ago.
a "field trip" will never happen because that's no the issue here.
Seriously, please tell me in the lawsuit where Att is saying Verizon lied about their 3g (let alone voice) coverage, or even where they are contesting the 5x larger claim. I would wait, but that hasn't done much as of yet since I told you much the same weeks ago.
...
they are the reason customers know what "3g" is if they would not have started making adds about it in the first place we would not be having this conversation
...
matonater said:
they are the reason customers know what "3g" is if they would not have started making adds about it in the first place we would not be having this conversation
Personally, I find no fault with Verizon advertising that they have way more 3G coverage than AT&T- that is the truth, my problem with the commercials is that they claim without 3G coverage, a user will be out of touch.
Verizon's big red map is also false, in my opinion. My bet is this lawsuit will not only succeed in getting the advertising pulled, VZW will be forced to redo their own coverage maps as well.
...
Hmmm... I wonder why the AT&T map only shows "data" and fails to indicate areas of UMTS vs. EDGE...
...
CellStudent said:
Hmmm... I wonder why the AT&T map only shows "data" and fails to indicate areas of UMTS vs. EDGE...
If you zoom in on the AT&T map, it'll show the 3G coverage, and it has been updated a bit to reflect a few additional markets. When looking at the Verizon 3G map, it's accurate (only coverage in dark blue on the VZW site & red in the commercial) with what's shown with about what AT&T has for 3G coverage in the commercial.
...
