Unless you've been living under a rock the past few months or haven't watch any tv whatsoever, you are most likely familar with the ongoing "war" between wireless phone providers Verizon and AT&T.AT&T claims to offer the best 3G experience there is, and use actor Luke Wilson as their spokesperson to point all the better 3G-related stuff they offer that Verizon apparently doesn't. Meanwhile, Verizon has gone with the comparison that they offer better coverage, using their coverage map and a coverage map of AT&T as a visual.
While I'm not entirely sure where Verizon got this particular map they use in their commercials (if you go online to AT&T's website, their coverage is actually a bit more than what the Verizon commericals claim), they definitely do cover more areas than AT&T do.
What I don't get, AT&T, is what good does it do someone to have "the best 3G experience" when you can't get coverage where you live or where you frequently go?I'd rather have the coverage, personally.
Not having coverage in certain areas I travelled was why I dropped t-mobile after my 1 year contract was up.
My family had been with US Cellular since I was 16 and got my first phone. I had that up until I was 22, when my family was thinking about switching elsewhere for a better nationwide plan and they were just paying month to month. I was becoming more and more independent and I saw that t-mobile had a special where I could get this cool Motorola PebL phone for like a penny when I signed up for a 1-year contract. After hear from a roommate and a few friends how happy they were with t-mobile, I decided to go for it.
During my first trip home from school, via the backroads, I had more dropped called in that 45 min drive than I had my entire time with US Cellular. Not to mention whenever I went to visit hubby and his family (before we were married), I would have zero bars of service out in the country where they live - this was quite inconvienient, especially being on backroads - if I were to have car trouble, I'd be SOL!
As soon as my contract was up I switched back to US Cellular. I explained it to t-mobile and they said it was a valid concern for leaving, saying that they hope to one day have coverage in those areas and when they do, they'd hope I would consider coming back.
Now I was happy with US Cellular but due to family connections at Verizon we ended up having to switch to keep with an affordable phone bill each month. And honestly, aside from a few issues with a certain store owner, I don't really have any complaints about the coverage, etc.
Which would you prefer - having coverage in places you go or having "the best 3G experience"?
AT&T's claims are full of crap.
ReplyDeleteThey offer the largest coverage area, perhaps... but *not in 3G*. The war that's going on right now has to do with the iPhone/Droid/whatever else, and let's face it, AT&T doesn't need help looking terrible in that department at all. The map that Verizon shows is just about right on the money with the 3G coverage (though I'm not sure if Verizon's is truly any better).
For me, I'm fine without awesome coverage everywhere... I'm still a poor college student, so you won't find me traveling from state to state. Instead, whatever service I use in my area (Sprint) better be damn good (and it is).
Great blog... I'll be back. :-)
Thanks for the comment!
ReplyDeleteMy husband was actually able to explain how Verizon got the map they use in the commercials, vs the map that AT&T has on their website.
Apparently the map on their website includes coverage in areas where they "piggy back" their signal or whatever off of other carrier's towers. They have the disclaimer in the fine print underneath their coverage map. Verizon does the same thing too and has the same fine print under their coverage map, which is the big red map we see in the commercials, however the blue map they use for AT&T is AT&T's coverage without them piggy backing off of other carriers.
Like I always say when I see the commercials - what good is having a "better 3G experience" when you can't get service to use it?
As long as whoever you go through has service/coverage in your area I don't see what the issue is. AT&T doesn't have coverage or at least good coverage in quite a bit of areas I've gone to occasionally so why would I want their service? If I'm going to be out in the country or on backroads I'd like to have coverage in case something happens and I need to call for help, ya know?