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

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: A Verizon reality check

#21

Post by fi0660 »

pyre wrote: post #14
fi0660 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My understanding is that when the phone is idle, bars are commonly measured based only on the quality and strength of the incoming signal. The outgoing signal might be stable enough for a handshake but not for a call.

Of course the other possible explanation for full bars but no calls is that the network is busy.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#22

Post by gcb »

bobbyi wrote: post #18

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.

SoCal here. and yes. pratically i only get the Edge icon on AT&T. Tmobile had NO SIGNAL on my office (but my device didn't supported their 3G frequencies, which are a joke in itself, btw.)

But, the edge speeds on tmobile were better then the 3g speeds on AT&T. i kid you not. i did real benchmarks with a tethered computer.

anyway. was going to get the droid on verizon, then the day i decided to go to the store, they had just ended the get-another-free promotion. so i went at&t. now i regret it. not that i would be happy on verizon either. it's a loose-loose with mobile. always.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#23

Post by zavulon »

bobbyi wrote: post #18

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.

Hear, hear.

Last time I've had Verizon was 3 years ago, and I got service EVERYWHERE, and I live in the same area as the author - NYC/Manhattan. Of course, everyone's experience is their own, but I think their network couldn't have become that much worse all of a sudden.

And as everybody with an iPhone knows, AT&T is hell. Just today, I got a whole bunch of calls that never made it to my phone. Discovered that there were new voicemails hours ago. And I'm sitting in my office, right next to a window, in an area where I usually get 4 bars.

The biggest problem with Verizon and the original reason that I switched is they (used to) not have any good phones. Now they do, and hopefully once they get iPhone there won't be any reason to stay on God-awful AT&T network.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#24

Post by gojomo »

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…

I agree it's nonsensical, but Verizon claims the restriction is necessary to satisfy regulations. See:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100415/0911259022.shtml

Re: A Verizon reality check

#25

Post by gcb »

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…

riiight. like mobile cias make any sense.

If they can congest their network and loose some calls, so be it. everyone has a bazilion minutes nowadays, it's not like they will pay any extra for those calls. but just a few have unlimited data.

So the changes are that they will be able to penny you to death on skype data charges, and it will cost them just a couple dropped/bad quality calls eventually. no biggie. ...it's not like anyone can complain or anything.

Re: A Verizon reality check

#26

Post by chrisbolt »

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.

All but T-Mobile have licenses for 850mhz, which propagates through walls better. Though that would only explain why T-Mobile would have worse reception indoors.
Post reply on HN