Action Line: Finally the pain is over: I switched from AT&T to Verizon

In today's San Jose Mercury News:

<http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>

In article <4dbd8ae4$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
> In today's San Jose Mercury News:
>
> <http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>

OK. So, Verizon is better than AT&T in the Bay Area and San Francisco.
We already knew this.

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.282732c2178b8626989721@news.justthe.net.. .
> In article <4dbd8ae4$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>>
>> In today's San Jose Mercury News:
>>
>> <http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>
>
> OK. So, Verizon is better than AT&T in the Bay Area and San Francisco.
> We already knew this.
>
> --
> Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
> sjsobol@JustThe.net

Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks"
stuff is essentially learned from the media. I have seen huge
improvements in AT&T service in the areas I use my phone to the point
that it's often those with Verizon who have trouble getting a decent
signal while I'm able to call and use data and generally have a phone
that, simply, works.

Oh, and I live in the SF Bay Area. Redwood City, for what it's worth.

I'm sure there remain troublesome areas of coverage for AT&T. I'm sure
that Mr. Rockstroh isn't making his own angst up. At the same time, his
use of his bully pulpit to rake AT&T over the coals over false
advertising without providing the specifics of the in-store promotional
materials he claims to have seen is specious. Is he claiming to have
seen a giant window sign advertising $49 3GS units without further
explanation? If he sees a supermarket window sign that advertises
oranges for $.59/lb is he upset when it turns out that's only one
particular type of orange and not the ones he wants? Or have I just
become so jaded over the years that I assume the worst of any
advertising I see so that I'm not disappointed by the fine print?
Probably. :-)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On 5/2/2011 2:46 AM, HumBug! wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 23:18:04 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks"
>> stuff is essentially learned from the media.
>
> I'd guess very LITTLE.
>
> In my case, it's been learned from VAST experience,
> both with my personal phones, and calls to other people's cellphones,
> from cellphones AND landlines.
>
>
>
>

My first mobile phone was Bell Atlantic Mobile and was an analog phone.
It had a vague resemblance to an anemic brick. It worked and worked well.

This was back in the mid to late late 1990s. I haven't been
*everywhere* but everywhere I have been I've been able to use my phone.
I'm willing to believe that there are blind/dead spots but I haven't
found them yet. My experience is mostly east cost, Maine to Florida but
there have been excursions to Texas (DFW), Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los
Angeles and various other places.

On 5/1/2011 11:18 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "Steve Sobol"<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.282732c2178b8626989721@news.justthe.net.. .
>> In article<4dbd8ae4$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>>>
>>> In today's San Jose Mercury News:
>>>
>>> <http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>
>>
>> OK. So, Verizon is better than AT&T in the Bay Area and San Francisco.
>> We already knew this.
>>
>> --
>> Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
>> sjsobol@JustThe.net
>
> Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks"
> stuff is essentially learned from the media. I have seen huge
> improvements in AT&T service in the areas I use my phone to the point
> that it's often those with Verizon who have trouble getting a decent
> signal while I'm able to call and use data and generally have a phone
> that, simply, works.
>
> Oh, and I live in the SF Bay Area. Redwood City, for what it's worth.
>
> I'm sure there remain troublesome areas of coverage for AT&T. I'm sure
> that Mr. Rockstroh isn't making his own angst up. At the same time, his
> use of his bully pulpit to rake AT&T over the coals over false
> advertising without providing the specifics of the in-store promotional
> materials he claims to have seen is specious. Is he claiming to have
> seen a giant window sign advertising $49 3GS units without further
> explanation?

Apparently.

> If he sees a supermarket window sign that advertises
> oranges for $.59/lb is he upset when it turns out that's only one
> particular type of orange and not the ones he wants? Or have I just
> become so jaded over the years that I assume the worst of any
> advertising I see so that I'm not disappointed by the fine print?
> Probably. :-)

I've seen advertising evolve over the years to become extremely
specific, often to the point of being ridiculous when there is a photo
of the product that includes more than just the product "xx not
included." I would be surprised if you saw a sign that just said
"oranges" without being more specific, but as long as the store had at
least one type of oranges for that price it'd be okay.

Of course Rockstroh probably knew darn well that the $49 iPhone 3GS, as
with any new iPhone, would require eligibility for a contract extension,
but was trying to get the store to honor their advertising.

I have seen chain stores where the management will, uncarefully, make up
their own signs advertising stuff. Saw that at Target a week ago where
there was a special on eggs for $.099/dozen, and the honored that price
for at least one customer until they yanked the signs.

On 5/1/2011 11:46 PM, HumBug! wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 23:18:04 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks"
>> stuff is essentially learned from the media.
>
> I'd guess very LITTLE.
>
> In my case, it's been learned from VAST experience,
> both with my personal phones, and calls to other people's cellphones,
> from cellphones AND landlines.

Long before the mass media really got onto AT&T's case over the data
congestion in certain areas, every independent survey that compared
providers showed similar differences in coverage between the different
carriers.

Unlike T-Mobile, which seems to have made an effort to not
over-exaggerate their network, AT&T (nee Cingular) has taken the
opposite approach, which is one reason the media gives them a hard time
when the truth comes out.

On 5/1/2011 11:46 PM, HumBug! wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 23:18:04 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks"
>> stuff is essentially learned from the media.
>
> I'd guess very LITTLE.
>
> In my case, it's been learned from VAST experience,
> both with my personal phones, and calls to other people's cellphones,
> from cellphones AND landlines.

I wonder if anything has changed in the past couple of years. AT&T is
now running television commercials boasting about how they have been
installing more new cells and expanding capacity. The problem is that
this is the same company that claimed "fewest dropped calls" when they
didn't have the fewest dropped calls, and fastest 3G network when it
wasn't the fastest, etc. Does anyone believe anything they say anymore?

SMS wrote on [Mon, 02 May 2011 06:43:34 -0700]:
> On 5/1/2011 11:46 PM, HumBug! wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 May 2011 23:18:04 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks"
>>> stuff is essentially learned from the media.
>>
>> I'd guess very LITTLE.
>>
>> In my case, it's been learned from VAST experience,
>> both with my personal phones, and calls to other people's cellphones,
>> from cellphones AND landlines.
>
> I wonder if anything has changed in the past couple of years. AT&T is
> now running television commercials boasting about how they have been
> installing more new cells and expanding capacity. The problem is that
> this is the same company that claimed "fewest dropped calls" when they
> didn't have the fewest dropped calls, and fastest 3G network when it
> wasn't the fastest, etc. Does anyone believe anything they say anymore?

Let's not forget they used to also claim they had better coverage than Verizon
the fine print hid there "worldwide" term

On 5/2/2011 7:01 AM, Justin wrote:

> Let's not forget they used to also claim they had better coverage than Verizon
> the fine print hid there "worldwide" term

Yes, that was another one of my favorites by AT&T. Their TV and radio
commercials claiming best worldwide coverage did stress the "worldwide"
coverage part, while not claiming the best U.S. coverage.

It was classic when AT&T sued Verizon over Verizon's ad campaign
"There's a Map for That" which compared 3G coverage. AT&T's complaint
was not that the 3G comparison was incorrect, but that Verizon did not
explain that AT&T still had coverage in many of the areas on that map,
just not 3G coverage.

I don't recall the old AT&T Wireless (not the current AT&T Mobility
which is really Cingular) engaging in the same type of misleading
advertising. They actually had a network that was as good as Verizon's
back in the TDMA/AMPS days, and they won a great deal of corporate
business based on the quality of their network. AT&T Mobility
concentrates more on the consumer side of things now, while Verizon has
taken more corporate business.

On Mon, 02 May 2011 09:18:35 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 5/1/2011 11:18 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> "Steve Sobol"<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.282732c2178b8626989721@news.justthe.net.. .
>>> In article<4dbd8ae4$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>>>>
>>>> In today's San Jose Mercury News:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>
>>>
>>> OK. So, Verizon is better than AT&T in the Bay Area and San Francisco.
>>> We already knew this.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
>>> sjsobol@JustThe.net
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks"
>> stuff is essentially learned from the media. I have seen huge
>> improvements in AT&T service in the areas I use my phone to the point
>> that it's often those with Verizon who have trouble getting a decent
>> signal while I'm able to call and use data and generally have a phone
>> that, simply, works.
>>
>> Oh, and I live in the SF Bay Area. Redwood City, for what it's worth.
>>
>> I'm sure there remain troublesome areas of coverage for AT&T. I'm sure
>> that Mr. Rockstroh isn't making his own angst up. At the same time, his
>> use of his bully pulpit to rake AT&T over the coals over false
>> advertising without providing the specifics of the in-store promotional
>> materials he claims to have seen is specious. Is he claiming to have
>> seen a giant window sign advertising $49 3GS units without further
>> explanation?
>
> Apparently.
>
>> If he sees a supermarket window sign that advertises
>> oranges for $.59/lb is he upset when it turns out that's only one
>> particular type of orange and not the ones he wants? Or have I just
>> become so jaded over the years that I assume the worst of any
>> advertising I see so that I'm not disappointed by the fine print?
>> Probably. :-)
>
> I've seen advertising evolve over the years to become extremely
> specific, often to the point of being ridiculous when there is a photo
> of the product that includes more than just the product "xx not
> included." I would be surprised if you saw a sign that just said
> "oranges" without being more specific, but as long as the store had at
> least one type of oranges for that price it'd be okay.
>
> Of course Rockstroh probably knew darn well that the $49 iPhone 3GS, as
> with any new iPhone, would require eligibility for a contract extension,
> but was trying to get the store to honor their advertising.
>
> I have seen chain stores where the management will, uncarefully, make up
> their own signs advertising stuff. Saw that at Target a week ago where
> there was a special on eggs for $.099/dozen, and the honored that price
> for at least one customer until they yanked the signs.

So, Steven, you bought 10 dozen for 99 cents?

Or you gave 'em a dime for one dozen, and they gave you one mil in change?

:-) Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

At 01 May 2011 23:18:04 -0700 Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.282732c2178b8626989721@news.justthe.net.. .
> > In article <4dbd8ae4$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
> >>
> >> In today's San Jose Mercury News:
> >>
> >> <http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>
> >
> > OK. So, Verizon is better than AT&T in the Bay Area and San Francisco.
> > We already knew this.
> >
> > --
> > Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
> > sjsobol@JustThe.net
>
> Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks"
> stuff is essentially learned from the media. I have seen huge
> improvements in AT&T service in the areas I use my phone to the point
> that it's often those with Verizon who have trouble getting a decent
> signal while I'm able to call and use data and generally have a phone
> that, simply, works.

A bad reputation is hard to shake. AT&T had enough problems with the
mergers and technology changes and migrations that they earned their bad
reputation then, but have certainly turned things around in recent years.
It'll take a long time to undo that damage to customer perception.


> Oh, and I live in the SF Bay Area. Redwood City, for what it's worth.
>
> I'm sure there remain troublesome areas of coverage for AT&T. I'm sure
> that Mr. Rockstroh isn't making his own angst up. At the same time, his
> use of his bully pulpit to rake AT&T over the coals over false
> advertising without providing the specifics of the in-store promotional
> materials he claims to have seen is specious. Is he claiming to have
> seen a giant window sign advertising $49 3GS units without further
> explanation? If he sees a supermarket window sign that advertises
> oranges for $.59/lb is he upset when it turns out that's only one
> particular type of orange and not the ones he wants? Or have I just
> become so jaded over the years that I assume the worst of any
> advertising I see so that I'm not disappointed by the fine print?
> Probably. :-)


LOL! I suspect it's a little of both. I was a Cingular dealer a looong
time ago, and I _never_ saw a sign that didn't a bunch of small typeface
disclaimers plastered all over it, so unless the employees of this
particular store took it upon themselves to hand-paint their own signage,
I doubt things happened exactly as the author described.

On 5/2/2011 5:10 PM, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2011 10:06:01 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>> In article<4dbd8ae4$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>>>
>>> In today's San Jose Mercury News:
>>>
>>> <http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>
>>
>> OK. So, Verizon is better than AT&T in the Bay Area and San Francisco. We
>> already knew this.
>
>
> Much better in rural areas of Massachusetts, too.

And rural Florida (thanks to Alltel).

On 5/2/2011 5:14 PM, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:

> Also, with CDMA, you don't get that annoying slapback in fringe areas like
> you do with GSM.

I wonder what percentage of AT&T voice calls are still on GSM anyway. If
it's an area with W-CDMA, and it's a 3G handset, the voice call is
probably going to be carried on W-CDMA.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 10:06:01 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:

> In article <4dbd8ae4$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>>
>> In today's San Jose Mercury News:
>>
>> <http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>
>
> OK. So, Verizon is better than AT&T in the Bay Area and San Francisco. We
> already knew this.


Much better in rural areas of Massachusetts, too.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 23:18:04 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.282732c2178b8626989721@news.justthe.net.. .
>> In article <4dbd8ae4$0$22137$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>>>
>>> In today's San Jose Mercury News:
>>>
>>> <http://www.mercurynews.com/action-line/ci_17950311?nclick_check=1>
>>
>> OK. So, Verizon is better than AT&T in the Bay Area and San Francisco.
>> We already knew this.
>>
>> --
>> Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
>
> Sometimes I wonder how much of the "Verizon is awesome, AT&T sucks" stuff
> is essentially learned from the media.

I have been on AT&T (through a reseller) and Verizon for a while. The
original company was Unicel, which primarily used AT&T's towers, but also
partnered with others, and the coverage was AMAZING around Mass, Vt and NH.
They got split up and bought by Verizon and AT&T. In Mass they went to
Verizon. And my bill went haywire. I signed up aith AT&T on a payGo plan,
but found holes in areas where there hadn't been holes with Unicel. Stuck
with Verizon for a while and then found PagePlus.

Also, with CDMA, you don't get that annoying slapback in fringe areas like
you do with GSM.

In article <4dbf4469$0$22145$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
> On 5/2/2011 5:14 PM, Hachiroku ???? wrote:
>
> > Also, with CDMA, you don't get that annoying slapback in fringe areas like
> > you do with GSM.
>
> I wonder what percentage of AT&T voice calls are still on GSM anyway. If
> it's an area with W-CDMA, and it's a 3G handset, the voice call is
> probably going to be carried on W-CDMA.

How likely is it that the fringe areas have been upgraded to WCDMA?

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

On 5/2/2011 5:19 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<4dbf4469$0$22145$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>>
>> On 5/2/2011 5:14 PM, Hachiroku ???? wrote:
>>
>>> Also, with CDMA, you don't get that annoying slapback in fringe areas like
>>> you do with GSM.
>>
>> I wonder what percentage of AT&T voice calls are still on GSM anyway. If
>> it's an area with W-CDMA, and it's a 3G handset, the voice call is
>> probably going to be carried on W-CDMA.
>
> How likely is it that the fringe areas have been upgraded to WCDMA?

I don't know. I know that Yosemite has no 3G coverage on AT&T. On
Verizon there is supposedly 3G roaming onto Golden State Cellular. It
doesn't work on Pageplus (voice coverage is extra-cost roaming), but it
may work on Verizon proper.