rodedog57 said:
what about 700 anytime minutes. fre N&W at 7pm and unlim m2m. got that on my gf's brothers line for 29.99 existing cusotmer deal with attws

Umm... no thanks. My friend had AT&TW in San Fran and hated it so much... dropped calls right and left. She's switching to Verizon in November, when her contract's up.

Or put another way-- AT&TW is cheaper because it HAS to be. And even with that, ppl are leaving them in droves ☹️

depenmds where you live with any company. verizon has worse reception then att. also can depend where you drive/what street you live on. two people working together one can hate a company one can like a company. all is relative to your daily travels.

rodedog57 said:
depenmds where you live with any company. verizon has worse reception then att.

Uhh... nope. Not anywhere I've heard of, anyway, though hey, I'm certain there must be exceptions. Even AT&TW must be good if you have a tower of there's in your backyard. Of course, Verizon has more towers though.

I think the situation kind of speaks for itself though... Verizon is #1, has a low churn rate, and is signing up new customers like mad. AT&TW, on the other hand, consistently ranks low in the customer satisfaction surveys , has a higher churn rate (customers saying hasta la vista) and is generally regarded as a sinking ship that needed CIngular to buy 'em out.Sorry, don't mean to be so harsh, but...
(continues)

actually i meant verizon is worse where I live in sacramento. the areas I travel to and from work better with att. just all relative to your travels

as far as not knowing how many youve had mid month. you can check all of that online. imo att is losing customers because they are not being babied anymore. they used to give away free rerates and credits like crazy when under att still and for a year or two after that. theyve tightened down and their old cusotmers used to getting free money dont like it and are leaving. theyll be in for a rude awakening with other companies too. not saying its this way for all customers leaving but yes I work for attws and worked for verizon (no harsh relationships with either verizon does its job nicely).75% of the people calling to cancel with us its their own fault. they use way more minutes then they had or roam for like 4 months then want a rerate the...
(continues)

rodedog57 said:
as far as not knowing how many youve had mid month. you can check all of that online. imo att is losing customers because they are not being babied anymore. they used to give away free rerates and credits like crazy when under att still and for a year or two after that. theyve tightened down and their old cusotmers used to getting free money dont like it and are leaving. theyll be in for a rude awakening with other companies too. not saying its this way for all customers leaving but yes I work for attws and worked for verizon (no harsh relationships with either verizon does its job nicely).75% of the people calling to cancel with us its their own fault. they use way more minutes then they had or roam for

...
(continues)

Yes AWS did bring it on themselfs. We used to have number one customer service because if someone called in and went over there minutes then no problem we'll fix it and credit you. Did some roaming? No problem we'll credit you back. Now we are tighting our belt with the plunging stock prices and saying no more. Noone else does so why should we and we are loseing money because of it but noone else is. So all the customers are used to it and not getting it anymore so they leave. Plus with the impending merger people are leaving just because that's what they do when they are unsure about a merger and that is to be expected. AWS also fumbled implienting their new CRM system right at the same time of the LNP and we even got a nicely worde...
(continues)

BetterThanJake said:

Uhh... nope. Not anywhere I've heard of, anyway, though hey, I'm certain there must be exceptions. Even AT&TW must be good if you have a tower of there's in your backyard. Of course, Verizon has more towers though.

Actually AWS has more cellsites than VZW does. I am guessing here but I do believe last I knew AWS also had a larger spectrum portfolio.

My understanding is that Verizon actually has the most cell towers... you're the first person I've met who's said ATT&W does.

Its also my understanding that Cingular is #2, and ATT&W is #3 in that dept. But if anyone's got a link...

Verizon, about 31k.
ATT about 22k
Cingular about 18k

last I read.

ATT certainly does NOT have more cell towers than Verizon, and it's network is far less expansive.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?!?!?! Where and when did you read that? The only number that comes close is AT&T's. AT&T certainly DOES have more cell towers than Verizon. Sorry to let you down. 🙄

I don't think he's 'let down' just on your say so. Most everybody I ask, they say the same thing: Verizon has more towers.

But if you have info otherwise, then share with the group- let's see a link.

Ah ok, caught your link now- seems like you're right, assuming AT&TW really does have 21k towers.

But if they have about the same # of towers as Verizon, why is their coverage worse? And why do they drop so many calls? Is it outdated equip, maintenance, TDMA, what?

Verizon's coverage is larger because CDMA frequencies travel farther than GSM frequencies do. So less towers on Verizon means little when it comes to actual coverage. As for dropped calls, Verizon has fewer dropped calls than most carriers because CDMA has a higher capacity than that of GSM (for AT&T, Cingular, and T-mobile).

RUFF1415 said:
Verizon's coverage is larger because CDMA frequencies travel farther than GSM frequencies do. So less towers on Verizon means little when it comes to actual coverage. As for dropped calls, Verizon has fewer dropped calls than most carriers because CDMA has a higher capacity than that of GSM (for AT&T, Cingular, and T-mobile).

I hope by coverage you don't mean their AC map because most of that is roaming agreements. So then if AWS has more towers than why does Verizon get "better" coverage than AWS? Simple...

AWS is operating 2 systems (TDMA and GSM) so firstly they have to split up their spectrum across 2 networks. Secondly, areas where they are the A-side or B-side carrier were overlay...
(continues)

Even at that, AT&T has even more STRICTLY GSM cell sites than Verizon cell sites. TDMA has no relevance to the number 22300, which represents only AT&T's GSM cell sites. You don't think that Verizon using CDMA has any relevance to why they have the "better" service that you speak of?

It is a fact that CDMA has a larger capacity than GSM. This means less dropped calls.

It is a fact that CDMA frequencies travel farther than GSM frequencies. This means that even though Verizon has less cell sites than AT&T, they may possibly cover more area than AT&T does, depending on how much farther a CDMA frequency travels.

I don't see the point of your response. Sorry. 😕

Nope! 😁 I agree. I know for a fact that AT&T has the largest number of cell sites of ALL CARRIERS in the U.S.

Verizon: Approximately 21,500 cell sites

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/aboutUs/wirelessN ... »

AT&T: Approximately 25,300 cell sites

Cingular: Approximately 21,800 cell sites

(These are ONLY GSM towers. Does not include TDMA cell sites.)

http://www.cingular.com/about/new_leadership.pdf »

Page 7.

Enjoy. 😉

More cell sites does not mean more coverage. As carrier's move to "3G" more sites will be required to provide the necesary bandwidth, especially as carrier's use higher frequencies.

That was not the point of my post. Two posters said "AT&T does NOT have more cell sites than Verizon". This is obviously not true. So what is the point of your post? 😳

More simply:

The dispute was not over superior coverage, it was over quantity of cell sites per carrier.

well on gsm of course the call itself doenst cost very much. but that is a tiny part in a companies operating income and can be meaningless. what if they take that money saved and give better raises or company benefits or to expand network or to reduce equip prices or give minutes. sure it costs less but it doesnt directly mean that a customer will get a better deal on something

Well, my understanding is that the cost savings with 3G are quite considerable. There's a carrier in Europe now (Hutchinson 3G I think the name is) that is now offering voice calls for ONE-FIFTH what its competitors do in some cases. And as you already know, its all GSM over there.

One thing we can agree on, though is that what the carriers do with that cost savings will depend on each individual carrier's competitive situation. Some carriers desperately need money to build a ton more network, some need marketshare, and others need to take better care of the customers they already have (more minutes or better CS).

It also has cost the Europeam operators 1/10th the cost to deploy 3G technologies. They have been on one standard and they have less towers due to smaller country size. It will be many years before the US has 3G nationwide. It will be very costly for any carrier and it will takes many years to recoup the cost. I don't foresee any pricing wars due to this.