Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Verizon reality check

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: A Verizon reality check

#11

Post by fi0660 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #5
wdewind wrote: post #4

The last two points are fair, the first two (re: data) simply are not. If you have significant problems with dropped calls in Manhattan you should have your specific device checked out.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you could see a strong signal outside, go inside and get no reception, and conclude that's due to the carrier. Like Verizon uses some sort of cheap radio waves that don't go through walls while AT&T uses the premium ones.

Carries can save money by having less towers but by using higher transmit power. I have heard that this can show up as the phone reporting full bars, but not being able to initiate/receive calls due to insufficient transmit power in the phone.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#12

Post by pyre »

iamdave wrote: post #10

* They’ll probably even charge separately for Visual Voicemail. * Let me be one to mention that this very likely wont be the only thing Verizon locks you out of for no particular reason. I'm unable to find the link currently, but a prime example of why I'll never sign up to Verizon again is just this. A user who owned a Motorola Droid downloaded Skype, and planned to use it over WiFi in areas where he'd incur roaming…

> Verizon actually managed to find a way to disable the voice feature of Skype, restricting it only to use in areas with network coverage.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they want to force a user to use Skype in network coverage areas? What does Verizon gain when you can't use Skype outside of the network?

If anything I would think that Verizon would disable Skype when you are in their network area, and only let you use it outside of that area.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#13

Post by dangrossman »

Why is Verizon the only other carrier in the race here? Is there a reason Sprint and T-Mobile can't carry the iPhone, or that nobody seems to care if they do? Sprint has smartphone plans with unlimited nights/weekends, unlimited text and picture messaging, and unlimited data services for $69.99/month. T-Mobile has similar for $59.99/month without a contract or $69.99/month with one. They'd both be far cheaper than anything Verizon would offer.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#14

Post by pyre »

fi0660 wrote: post #11
mattmaroon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you could see a strong signal outside, go inside and get no reception, and conclude that's due to the carrier. Like Verizon uses some sort of cheap radio waves that don't go through walls while AT&T uses the premium ones.

Carries can save money by having less towers but by using higher transmit power. I have heard that this can show up as the phone reporting full bars, but not being able to initiate/receive calls due to insufficient transmit power in the phone.

While possible, that doesn't seem likely. Doesn't the phone have to do some sort of handshake with the tower to even show the bars? Or are you saying that the phone only has enough power to do the handshake?

Re: A Verizon reality check

#15

Post by jrockway »

dangrossman wrote: post #13

Why is Verizon the only other carrier in the race here? Is there a reason Sprint and T-Mobile can't carry the iPhone, or that nobody seems to care if they do? Sprint has smartphone plans with unlimited nights/weekends, unlimited text and picture messaging, and unlimited data services for $69.99/month. T-Mobile has similar for $59.99/month without a contract or $69.99/month with one. They'd both be far cheaper than an…

People like Verizon because they plaster ads everywhere. T-Mobile and Sprint are quieter.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#16

Post by jrockway »

fragmede wrote: post #9
sjs382 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. My HTC Incredible has 1 Verizon logo on the front, under the earpiece and it's tiny. 2. There are no Verizon icons I can't delete. There is a separate Verizon app store in the Android market, though. 3. Google Maps offers great turn-by-turn on my phone. Free. 4. MP3 stores are available on Android. yawn

2. There are no Verizon icons I can't delete. AFAIK, Verizon does have a boot logo on the HTC Incredible. Not the most intrusive thing, but I'm not aware of a way to delete that icon.

Reflash.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#17

Post by detst »

iamdave wrote: post #10

* They’ll probably even charge separately for Visual Voicemail. * Let me be one to mention that this very likely wont be the only thing Verizon locks you out of for no particular reason. I'm unable to find the link currently, but a prime example of why I'll never sign up to Verizon again is just this. A user who owned a Motorola Droid downloaded Skype, and planned to use it over WiFi in areas where he'd incur roaming…

Be be fair, the reason is that they partnered with Skype to transfer Skype calls over their voice network for free. While I don't like it, now that they are officially supporting it, I can understand how WiFi could be a big reliability and support problem.

It's a trade-off but having the reliability and quality of their voice network for free with Skype is quite nice.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#18

Post by bobbyi »

Our company's office in SOMA, San Francisco has zero AT&T reception. If you are in our conference room and someone calls, your iPhone will not ring.

The "reality check" should be going to people who think free visual voicemail and small icons on the hardware are in any way significant issues compared to the magnitude of how much worse AT&T's network is.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#19

Post by iamdave »

pyre wrote: post #12
iamdave wrote: post #10

* They’ll probably even charge separately for Visual Voicemail. * Let me be one to mention that this very likely wont be the only thing Verizon locks you out of for no particular reason. I'm unable to find the link currently, but a prime example of why I'll never sign up to Verizon again is just this. A user who owned a Motorola Droid downloaded Skype, and planned to use it over WiFi in areas where he'd incur roaming…

> Verizon actually managed to find a way to disable the voice feature of Skype, restricting it only to use in areas with network coverage. That doesn't make any sense. Why would they want to force a user to use Skype in network coverage areas? What does Verizon gain when you can't use Skype outside of the network? If anything I would think that Verizon would disable Skype when you are in their network area, and only…

A couple of links

http://connectedplanetonline.com/mobile-apps/news/verizon-sk...

http://www.skypejournal.com/2010/04/skype-on-verizon-android...

Now, it's worth noting that while this problem has been somewhat 'fixed' meaning you can run Skype over wifi for applications like Instant Messaging/Chat, you still have to use the Verizon Network in order to actually make calls.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#20

Post by iamdave »

detst wrote: post #17
iamdave wrote: post #10

* They’ll probably even charge separately for Visual Voicemail. * Let me be one to mention that this very likely wont be the only thing Verizon locks you out of for no particular reason. I'm unable to find the link currently, but a prime example of why I'll never sign up to Verizon again is just this. A user who owned a Motorola Droid downloaded Skype, and planned to use it over WiFi in areas where he'd incur roaming…

Be be fair, the reason is that they partnered with Skype to transfer Skype calls over their voice network for free. While I don't like it, now that they are officially supporting it, I can understand how WiFi could be a big reliability and support problem. It's a trade-off but having the reliability and quality of their voice network for free with Skype is quite nice.

Oh, absolutely. This is great for Skype users who need a constant connection to get in contact with their Skype contacts. But it seems only somewhat disingenuous that a service like Skype which works fine on it's ancestor platform (the computer) doesn't have the requirement of a third-party network to operate, while the mobile version does.

Or maybe I'm missing the point

Post reply on HN