One of the biggest stories in the cellular world over the past few weeks is the spat between Verizon Wireless and AT&T. It started when Verizon ran ads mocking AT&T’s 3G coverage, noting that they cover much, much more of the country with 3G than AT&T. The two sides argued, with AT&T eventually filing suit against Verizon. In question is the definition of 3G coverage. Technically, by the accepted definition of 3G, Verizon did not lie in their ads. The truth, however, is not as clear cut.
While Verizon might be technically correct with their 3G claims, AT&T actually provides faster overall 3G speeds than Verizon. It’s true that AT&T doesn’t have as much coverage with 3G than Verizon, but it does cover most major markets in the U.S. Where it doesn’t have 3G coverage, AT&T offers EDGE, which is considered 2.5G. Apple Insider explains the situation.
Part of the problem is that the advertised 3G speeds are based on ideal conditions. Those rarely exist. There are always factors that obstruct coverage, and network capacity always plays a part. Apple Insider looks at the typical speed of Verizon’s 3G vs. Verizon’s EVDO 3G, and finds that typical speeds aren’t that much higher on Verizon.
Of course, ideal coverage is much faster with Verizon, but if people are getting “typical” speeds most of the time the difference is not as pronounced. The most interesting part of the graph is how much faster AT&T’s 3G coverage is.
Does Verizon make a valid point? In a way. They’re not technically lying. What they’re really doing is calling into question the definition of 3G. Since many people who watch these commercials don’t know what it means, the ads end up misleading some. AT&T provides fast coverage in major markets, and in most other areas it provides speeds comparable to typical Verizon 3G speeds. So how should they rule on this one?
Related posts:
