Verizon & Android news

[Dryden]

It's interesting to see VZW slowly changing it's business plan around to adapt, something I swore would never happen and that if you were on Verizon you were pretty much fucked phone wise. Now they are boasting they are the "open network" allowing people to use apps like Google Voice that other carriers, like ATT, are not supporting.

VZW has to, because they've been so busy trumpeting what they've had that ATT is passing them by.

ATT is in process of making every single tower they own 3G (should be completed in most metro areas where fiber is not cost prohibitive to run by Q1 2010), and virtually all the current 3G towers in major cities will be 4G by 2011 (that's a 2x speed bump from 3.6Mbps to 7.2Mbps).

I've heard from multiple ATT engineers that we're (Lancaster, OH) scheduled to have 31 new fiber facilities completed over the next six months, with every single cell tower 3G, and Uverse available to most every dwelling inside the city limits.

By Christmas 2011, VZW's network will look downright primitive by comparison.

Now would be the absolute worst time to sign a lengthy contract with VZW. That's precisely why they're jacking up their early term fees.

 

[jwinslow]

VZW has to, because they've been so busy trumpeting what they've had that ATT is passing them by.

why did it take ATT this long to address the network?

 

[Dryden]

I read over this on gizmodo, the reason ATT seems pissed is because they feel the ad makes it look like they don't have phone service in other areas. However, the add is accurate for full 3G max speed coverage. It is what it is, but good luck ATT, reminds me of when McDonalds sued Burger King when I was a kid because of the "Whopper Beats the Big Mac" ad campaign they ran.

The issue with the ad is that while both maps indicate 3G coverage areas, VZW neglects to note that a large portion of their map does not offer full-rate 3.6Mbps 3G speeds. So, while the comparison is technically correct with the two maps shown, in the most literal sense, it would be a more fair comparison to include ATTs older EDGE network on their map.

 

[jwinslow]

The issue with the ad is that while both maps indicate 3G coverage areas, VZW neglects to note that a large portion of their map does not offer full-rate 3.6Mbps 3G speeds.

Didn't ATT recently run an ad campaign trumpeting their largest network (can't recall if it was 3G) thanks to their international presence more than the national map they were advertising to?

 

[BuckeyeTillIDie]

By Christmas 2011, VZW's network will look downright primitive by comparison.

Now would be the absolute worst time to sign a lengthy contract with VZW. That's precisely why they're jacking up their early term fees.

Well, this made my iPhone choice easier.

 

[jwinslow]

ATT is in process of making every single tower they own 3G (should be completed in most metro areas where fiber is not cost prohibitive to run by Q1 2010), and virtually all the current 3G towers in major cities will be 4G by 2011 (that's a 2x speed bump from 3.6Mbps to 7.2Mbps).

I've heard from multiple ATT engineers that we're (Lancaster, OH) scheduled to have 31 new fiber facilities completed over the next six months, with every single cell tower 3G, and Uverse available to most every dwelling inside the city limits.

By Christmas 2011, VZW's network will look downright primitive by comparison.

What is VZW's network supposed to look like in 2010 & 2011? The reports were that they were testing 4G this year, have 4G in 30 markets in 2010, and nationwide in 2013-14. Is there any type of chart or estimation from someone who has their finger on the pulse of both sides? There seems to be a lot of insults and chest thumping from one side, but very few comparisons.

 

[Dryden]

why did it take ATT this long to address the network?

ATT was poorly managed post-breakup all the way through the late-90s, and it showed in them having segregated networks for voice and data well after the Internet was a proven entity. This was compounded by them slowly buying back and having to integrate all the pieces they were broken into after the Bell system divesture in 1984. In many instances ATT wound up with multiple lines from Point A to Point B, often with an old line of plain old twisted copper wire that was literally 60 years old or older carrying a ton of traffic, and a new high speed line with no traffic carried on it going to the same destination in another conduit only six-inches away.

The "new" ATT is seeing a ground up overhaul which will be built on a new network of multi-Gbps fiber cris-crossing the nation. It's ironic in that ATT is following VZW's lead in making their core smaller, more agile, and more efficient, while VZW is going the other direction and becoming a big bloated company like ATT.

VZW now employs over 223,000 people. ATT employs 302,000.

That's absurd for VZW when you consider they don't need the army of trucks for residential POTS like ATT maintains. I'm guessing most of those 223,000 are probably the people who walk from place-to-place with the "Can you hear me now?" guy.

 

[jwinslow]

So what are the chances that they buy up Embarq's tiny footprint in my rural area east of cbus? Are they overhauling their existing network or buying up other real estate?

 

[Dryden]

What is VZW's network supposed to look like in 2010 & 2011? The reports were that they were testing 4G this year, have 4G in 30 markets in 2010, and nationwide in 2013-14. Is there any type of chart or estimation from someone who has their finger on the pulse of both sides? There seems to be a lot of insults and chest thumping from one side, but very few comparisons.

What VZW does not tell you is that their 3G (CDMA EV-DO Rev. A) is slower than ATTs 3G (3rd Generation Partnership Project, or 3GPP). VZW's theoretical maximum is 3.1Mbps vs 3.6Mbps under ATTs laboratory tests. I say theoretical because VZW's actual full-rate connection in the real world maxes out at between 700kbps - 1.1Mbps. VZW's real-world speeds outside of major metro areas (anywhere else on their network) are generally even slower than that, about 400kbps. Well, ATT's EDGE is 384kbps.

I am in backwater central, Lancaster, and even I pull over 1Mbps during peak tower usage (drive-time) from my iPhone on ATTs 3G network. See the screen cap attached.

The whole "map" thing is bullshit.

What is really at issue is backhaul. What good is a high speed wireless connection if there's a bottleneck on the core network itself before you get where you want to go?

As long as we're comparing Columbus to Columbus, or New York to New York, then it's a perpetual game of one-upmanship. Both networks will have this or that at approximately the same time. And yes. OK. Verizon does have better coverage in Coshocton. And New Lexington. And uh ... Nelsonville. If I ever need to call Buckyle for directions to place where I can bury a dead hooker, I'll probably wish I had Verizon then.

But what I care about is what happens when everyone grabs their cellphone and connects to a tower at the same time as me and tries to pull up a Web site or access a bank record hosted somewhere else across the country.

That's what we're talking about when it comes to network speeds. And on the backbone, ATT blows away VZW, and it's really not even close.

Also, FWIW, ComputerWorld did a 3G test between ATT, Sprint, and Verizon last year using laptop connect cards, and ATTs mobile broadband was almost twice as fast as Verizons at any given location tested, with a peak throughput 33% faster.

---

The screencap below is what I just took off my iPhone, and I'm on the very edge of 3G tower range where I'm sitting right now.

 

[jwinslow]

Thanks for sharing. Is the doubled ETF fee thing because of ATT's upcoming network, or are they just trying to make up for the increasing number of fee-free cancellations based on technicalities (text msg rate increases voiding the contract, etc).

 

[Dryden]

Thanks for sharing. Is the doubled ETF fee thing because of ATT's upcoming network, or are they just trying to make up for the increasing number of fee-free cancellations based on technicalities (text msg rate increases voiding the contract, etc).

I think Verizon upped their term fees in the hope of locking-in potential desserters this holiday season, and either steer those subscribers to an Android w/ a new 2-year contract, or else hope they'll wait with what they've got until the alleged smaller CDMA iPhone is released in Q3 2010.

Anything to prevent people from realizing that ATTs first HSPA 7.2Mbps towers will be lit up in two weeks (November 22).

 

[jwinslow]

Great phone. Absolutely is a game changer. It doesn't kill the iPhone, but it definitely competes well.

Faster, snappier gui, seems to load things faster than the iPhone.

Slide out keyboard is nice. Wish the keyboard was the whole width. Flat keys help make the phone very slim, but make it hard to feel what you're hitting. Definitely harder to type on it than a blackberry with raised edges on their keys.

Not thrilled with the look of the phone. The edges/lines feel clunky.

Excellent phone construction, solid strong slideout construction. Not flimsy at all.

Screen is incredible. At least equal to the iphones imo.


Gmail app is a huge plus for me. Robust, free app.


Google app integration will be a big plus. With apple blackballing google apps, the android phones have a real opportunity to carve out a niche here.



I was up for upgrade last spring. I was holding out to see if an iPhone came to big red, but this is awfully tempting.


I think i'll wait till spring, get a feel for how the android software and apps develop, and see what new phones - iPhone or android - is coming down the pike.


For me, this doesn't kill my major interest in the iPhone, but it finally provides a worthy adversary. Until now we had cheap ripoffs or completely different phones (blackberry)



This is an outstanding debut model for Verizon. I know this is second generation android since tmobile had it before, but this line is very exciting.

 

[OCBucksFan]

The full google voice integration is really nice, really really nice. The default Video player sucks, but there's quite a few really nice options free in the market.

I don't think you can call it an iphone killer, however, it reaches a different type of market. They are different types of phones, the droid is nice though, it's funny when there's something that makes me go "wow, how did I ever survive on a blackberry curve" It's powerful, the open devopment has some interesting applications in the market, wifi scanners that detect hidden networks, port scanners, web servers, it's funny that a device this open is on verizons network.

 

[OCBucksFan]

So I have been playing with this phone non stop for 4 days now, and I wanted to ramble on about my thoughts over it.

So I think I have figured it out as best I can, the Droid is open source much like linux. It doesn't have the best media player built in, but there's quite a few out there, it doesn't sync with media player or itunes, but there are plugins out there.

What it does have is a really powerful processor, a great screen, easy navigation and a fully open source code to develop those things. What it has is a lot of potential, and it's got a huge network to work on. The fact that android is fully open on Verizon just baffles me, yet every app I have installed, This includes wifi scanners capable of finding hidden networks and ip port scanners, unless it's been broken in via Android updates, it works, even things like Google Voice where you really are taking money out of Verizons pockets and putting it into googles.

If you are in the smart phone world, there's 4 major players, three weeks ago there were only 3. With Android being backed by Google's development team and Googles constant push to develop and improve their services, and Verizons network and the ammount of corporate accounts they have who have been chained to Exchange and Blackberry, Google came in with a force. On T-mobile they were a niche phone, but for people outside of major cities, T-Moble wasn't an option, so the G1 and HTC Android phones, while cool, and cheap, didn't really offer coverage for a lot of people.

Like I said, this phone isn't the iphone, nor does it really strive to be. It's got features similiar, but it's native functionality pushes more towards the geek or business person. Constant sync, online emails, corporate calendar, full exchange functionality, gps, etc... you can get that the idea behind the Droid was to focus on the areas that the iPhone either lacked or didn't really promote.

Geeks will be drawn to the phone, it's open source, has a ton of functions and there will be many many hacking/security utilities for this phone. In the long run, there will also be many exploits, open source, open development, that's going to mean trouble. I think I will just stick with the rule of never installing anything outside of the marketplace, no matter how cool someone says the app is.

It's interesting, Apple, Microsoft, Google and to a lesser extent Blackberry have pushed the idea that a phone is just a device on a network, like a computer, which I think is great.

Oh and one last note, I have heard a lot of people asking about the Camera. Meh, I will put it like this, it's better than most camera phones but worse than most cameras. It's not great, it doesn't take good night pix, however, it does stabilize, which is great, and during the days the photos are nice. The Video camera seems to be pretty good, I have been playing with it, so that's a plus, the fact that you can take a video and immediately upload it to youtube, facebook or mail it out sort of concerns me, but I am going to assume that's always been there with the iphone.

 

[OCBucksFan]

I think Verizon upped their term fees in the hope of locking-in potential desserters this holiday season, and either steer those subscribers to an Android w/ a new 2-year contract, or else hope they'll wait with what they've got until the alleged smaller CDMA iPhone is released in Q3 2010.

Anything to prevent people from realizing that ATTs first HSPA 7.2Mbps towers will be lit up in two weeks (November 22).

Twice in my life I had made the jump from Verizon to ATT, twice I have had to come back, both times I was fucked on coverage, not high speed coverage, phone coverage. Where I live now, anyone with ATT can't get shit, verizon, 5 bars, full high speed. At my old place, same thing, oh yeah, I live about 5 miles from Irvine California where ATT's major office is :(

So, while 7.2 Megs to my phone sounds sexy as hell, until they get those black spots on their map resolved, I won't even consider switching, the extra costs suck, but not getting calls, that's a risk I can't professionally take.