New iPhone unimpressed

schweb said:

You're missing my point Doug. I'm just pointing out that in some ways Verizon's network isn't as robust as AT&T and would probably have had the same network issues as AT&T if they had been the initial exclusive provider of the iPhone in the US.

Click to expand...

Nah.. I got your point. I just chose to skirt around it a bit because its relevance is only as strong as the proof of that statement. How many Verizon BB users are out there ? How many of the same issues are made such a case, as we see being made out of ATT's network because of the iPhone ? Just saying.. All things being equal, Verizon's network is still less problematic across the board, according to statistics and customer satisfaction polls etc..

You're not seeing the forest through the trees my friend. You're focusing on a rhetorical argument that was not the point I was making...

Click to expand...

Hello pot, I'd like you to meet Mr. black kettle ! ;D

While I agree the FCC could regulate more, it's not going to solve the problem. The US has far more area than any European national carrier has to eve begin thinking about dealing with.

Regulation will only get you so far, when the truth is that the cost to create a network as ubiquitous as that in Europe would be so prohibitive it's not even worth it. It's the same reason the US will never have the public transit system like Europe, it's just not feasible.

Click to expand...

It might not solve anything immediately, but it would sure go a long way to change the playing grounds and pave the way for new business models, starting with stronger infrastructures.

In terms of the US having a broader area to cover, part of the problem is that we only have ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint covering us for the most part. And in reality, T-Mobile and Sprint aren't even all that great compared to the former two. Tighter regulations could even out the playing field a great deal IMO.

As far as costs go, in order to catch up to EU standards, the mobile companies in the States are raking it in hand over fist. How about putting some of that equity into further development and construction ? Besides, the cost of maintaining, developing and repairing either system is very relative to each countries revenue/income, regardless of how saturated each market might be.

Technically I'm not really disagreeing with your sentiments, but I can't fully support them either since neither of us can conclude without a doubt that either argument will hold its own since proof is in the pudding, and we're mostly arguing semantics.

Well, I guess we'll both have to wait and see what happens after Verizon's first year of iPhonedom...

Doug

So Doug, are you going to claim Verizon's network would have performed better if they had been chosen over AT&T as the exclusive provider of the first iPhone? And please tell me you're not trying to claim a BB user's data pattern or stress on the network is anywhere near that of an iPhone.

Because as we know customer satisfaction polls are definitely definitive proof of a better network.

The comparison at this point when Verizon eventually gets the phone won't even be applicable since they won't be exclusive and have been prepping their network for years for the moment Apple gives them a chance to sell it.

And I did get your point Doug so no pot and kettle here. I just refused to let you pull me off on a tangent rather than debating the merit of my original argument.

schweb said:

So Doug, are you going to claim Verizon's network would have performed better if they had been chosen over AT&T as the exclusive provider of the first iPhone?

Click to expand...

Touché! Haha.. I'll only answer your first question, even though you know we both know the answer to it. (wow, was that an Ralph Cramdon line there?)

And the answer is: 11 ! ;D

Alright, alright... But seriously. No, I'd not make such a claim because that is something beyond the grasp of an real answer. As said, Verizon already had a very saturated BB market on their hands, and so sure.. it would be entirely possible that adding the iPhone to its ranks could have put a bottleneck somewhere in their networks.

But now.. look at what you said. That Verizon has had time to clean up and prepare. And ATT didn't ? ATT's network was already a bit of a slob before the iPhone, and they had more than enough time to get their acts together, especially with all the new revenue being pulled in for their new flagship phone.

While Sprint has rolled out 4G in what, 28 markets ? And Verizon is ramping up for their version of 4G, ATT is still having massive problems with their 3G networks, in some of the most financially lucrative markets in the US. NYC and San Francisco... seriously ? Places where it's totally shake and bake ? Embarrassing, really.

Not much else to say on the subject I guess, other than now, we wait.

Doug

P.S. What merit ? The argument was purely speculative and rhetorical to begin with.

Back onto AT&T: in some places, their signal is AWESOME.

When I lived in Orlando I never had any problem with dropped calls. Had no idea what people on the interwebz were talking about.

Here in the pacific northwest, the signal is SO good that I live 13 miles outside the US (and 26 miles from the nearest US cell tower) and can pick up the AT&T signal on my US sim card and make calls just fine on the US network from the seashore in Victoria BC (that's Canada, for those who don't know). The signal's a little weak (two bars), but it works fine (I'd rate it 95%). Of course when I'm actually in Washington state or other parts of the Pacific NW I get great signal in pretty much any urban area.

This is not to defend AT&T: where they suck, they suck I'm sure. It's just to point out that they don't suck everywhere. I'm sure Verizon and TMobile and every other US carrier has "dead spots" as well.