Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Image

Verizon Asks Court To Affirm 'Most Reliable' Claim 111

Posted by samzenpus from the can-you-sue-me-now dept.
suraj.sun writes "Verizon has asked a court to affirm its claim to be 'America's Most Reliable 3G Network.' From the article, 'Verizon Wireless, a joint venture of Verizon and Vodafone Group PLC, asked a US court for a judgment that its advertising claims to be "America's Most Reliable 3G Network" were truthful, which rival AT&T called "misleading" on Monday. In papers filed in US District Court in Manhattan, Verizon said assertions on July 1 by AT&T Mobility LLC, a unit of AT&T, that its advertising was false could not be supported. AT&T, which has its principal business in Atlanta, had filed the challenge with the National Advertising Division of the Council for Better Business Bureaus. Verizon Wireless said its claims of having "America's Most Reliable 3G Network" and "America's Best 3G Network" and "America's Most Reliable Wireless Network" are "truthful, accurate and substantiated" and do not violate the trademark law known as the Lanham Act. It said that AT&T's challenge "relies on the incorrect premise that speed is an essential element of the standard for measuring network reliability.'" I can only hope that at some future date a court will decide which light beer truly is the best tasting.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Asks Court To Affirm 'Most Reliable' Claim More

Verizon Asks Court To Affirm 'Most Reliable' Claim

Comments Filter:
  • In the twin cities of Minnesota it is the best network. So at least for me in a non scientific study of using friends cell phones. My verizon blackberry is on a better network. Speed/Signal/Non Roaming.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tycho ( 11893 )

      Yeah, but where my parents live, which is in an inner ring suburb of Minneapolis, with Verizon, I can expect one bar intermittently, at best, on the top floor and no reception at all at either the ground level or outside in the yard. As one might expect, there is no reception as well in the partially underground basement. Granted, the signal is better than Sprint or T-mobile, which have no signal, but that's not saying much. I suppose there is the Verizon picocell basestation, but why should anyone have

      • You must be talking about Columbia Heights.

      • i never understood how they get away with the pricing on picocell devices - you are essentially doing them a favor by a) providing bandwidth for calls b) still using your minutes to do so c) paying money up front, and in some cases d) paying a monthly fee.

        these devices keep you off carrier towers, and effectively reduce their overhead.

        if anything these should be free.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ground.zero.612 ( 1563557 )
      Seconded. I should qualify that with some measurements that I used to determine it to be "best."

      1) Call clearity.
      2) Low call drop, drop-out rates.
      3) Phone selection.
      4) Coverage area.
      5) Price.
      6) Customer Service.

      I find that typically if 1-5 are up to par I almost never have to deal with 6. Also, I have subscribed to Sprint (and Qwest back they were leasing from Sprint). I would place Sprint at #2 in the Minneapolis, MN area for at least 1-3 in the above. I experience the worst quality calls, and h

    • In most of the places I've been, with the two carriers I've had experience with, if you are...

      (a) out in the coutnry, you want Verizon
      (b) in a fairly croweded city area, you want Sprint.

      So, which is the most reliable? It's up to you.

      Reliability to me is based on dropped/not-dropped calls, and quality of signal (noticeable fraction of words dropped = unreliable)

      • In my experience, that was not true. I have a cell phone through work. It was US Cellular, but they got a good deal with Verizon and started switching everyone. I had to go back to US Cellular because there was no coverage in my little town 5 miles outside the urban area.
        They are qualifying that statement by saying 3G network though. So if you want to dick around on your phone and not use it as a phone, it probably works fine for that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Skater ( 41976 )
        This is an interesting issue for me right now, since my fiance uses AT&T, and I use Verizon, and at some point next spring (when our current contracts expire), we're going to pick one or the other. I've never had anything but Verizon and have been pretty happy with their coverage, even when I'm out camping. But since we've been together, on the two or three occasions I couldn't get a Verizon signal, she has been able to get a good AT&T signal. Sooner or later, I'm sure we'll run into a situation

        • on the two or three occasions I couldn't get a Verizon signal, she has been able to get a good AT&T signal.

          Anecdote time...
          On Amtrak trains between Chicago and Carbondale, IL, Verizon seems to work almost the entire time, whereas all the other carriers have significant coverage dropouts.
          On the other hand, I have issues with my cell phone in my home.

    • At work, my Verizon phones are/were pretty much the only one that worked indoors.

  • in the Best catagory, not the most reliable catagory. So, they may win a partial victory here, but shouldn't get all of the catagories approved.

  • A decision I would support would be if the court fully backed Verizon's claim...
    BUT
    made them get rid of the obnoxious guy with the thick rimmed glasses. I swear I have to change the channel when I see those ads.

    • Re:A decision I would support... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:58PM (#28870083)
      Didn't you notice that they wanted speed excluded? You can get a "reliable" pretty much anywhere if you drop the speed requirement low enough. Being able to depend upon a reliable amount of bandwidth is definitely a part of reliability.

      AT&T around here isn't going to be winning any reliability contests, but they seem to have a point in this case.

      • Re:A decision I would support... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by CannonballHead ( 842625 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:15PM (#28870405)

        Being able to depend upon a reliable amount of bandwidth is definitely a part of reliability.

        That depends on how you define "reliable." When you talk about a "reliable old car" you're not saying "I can go 60mph in this thing any time I want." When you talk about a "reliable old computer" you probably aren't referring to speed. When you talk about hardwired phone lines being "reliable" you aren't talking about voice quality, you're talking about it always being available even during power outages. When you talk about a "reliable" network... speed isn't necessarily the issue. Whether or not it is usable is the issue... obviously, 0kb/s isn't very usable, either, but 5kb/s is. Maybe not to watch movies, I suppose.

        • How can the court decide when it's clear there are no objective measureable standards for "best" and "most reliable"? If there was a standard all one has to do is check the data submitted by each side versus the standard. In the Auto Industry they have the JD Powers surveys that one could refer to, others seem to trust Consumer Reports. The only thing this is doing is running up legal fees for both companies and affecting profits. On a personal note my work Crackberry is Verizon and my personal iPhone is AT

          • How can the court decide when it's clear there are no objective measureable standards for "best" and "most reliable"?

            I agree.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          That depends on how you define "reliable." When you talk about a "reliable old car" you're not saying "I can go 60mph in this thing any time I want."

          But you are saying it will go as fast as you need it to.

          When you talk about hardwired phone lines being "reliable" you aren't talking about voice quality,

          Unless the quality is sometimes low enough to render conversation impossible.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Reliable is an imprecise word. It depends entirely upon what you rely on the network to do. If you rely on the network to browse the web, then speed certainly does matter. If you're a doctor that relies on the network to be constantly contactable should one of his patients require surgery, speed really isn't important so long as there is enough to maintain a voice connection.

        The best ruling might be for the judge to require Verizon to say "voice network" if they want to use the reliable wording. In my exper

        • A few years ago I took a trip to Canyonlands national park. According to our guide, it's the most remote part of the continental US. Yet you can get a Verizon signal almost anywhere in the park. So reliably, I was told, that the US park system scrapped an expensive radio system they developed for the park in favor of Verizon cell phones.

          But that's a measure of coverage, not reliability. Reliability would involve things like not losing a call or being unable to initiate one in a place that is covered.

          I, on

  • TFS: Which light beer truly is the best tasting (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mr. Beatdown ( 1221940 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:14PM (#28869191)
    I'm more interested in which is least filling.
    • I love Budweiser's current ad campaign. They are just going with honesty: "Drinkability". Hey, it's drinkable!

      • Budweiser: The beer of driving.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by maxume ( 22995 )

          Judging from litter, around here is is probably Busch Light, or maybe Coors Light.

      • Try telling that to someone outside the USA. Many of them think it's piss poor beer. Just wait, when InBev gets finished with ruining the brand by cost cutting no one will care.
        • Thats because it is piss poor beer, even by American (I fall in that group) standards. The only time I consider it somewhat acceptable to drink Bud light or Miller Lite or similar is when:

          A) i'm given the beer for free
          B) i'm playing beer pong
          C) i'm feeling sensitive about my weight, or i just ate at a buffet or something (yes they are mutually exclusive :P)

          I still ritually begin each night at a bar with a Guinness or Smithwick's or something with taste because they're worth paying a few extra bucks f

        • Try telling that to someone outside the USA. Many of them think it's piss poor beer.

          ....That's my point. If the best they can do is say that it is "drinkable", then they are in bad shape.
          And as far as people's taste in beer outside the US goes, it is not generally better (except for beer capitals like Germany, Belgium, England, Ireland, etc).
          In fact it used to crack me up when I lived in Italy how many euro-yuppies would pay 4-5 euros for a bottle of Bud (yes, American Bud). It was like Corona is here in the USA: the overpriced favorite of those who have no taste in beer.

          • Agreed. I don't drink it. I live where I can get some good regional beers which I greatly prefer and willingly pay for $$ to consume. Plus it keeps the little guys around, I don't want to see a Wal-Mart of beer.

      • They turn their biggest weakness into a strength: The ad affirms that having no body is a good quality in beer!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Leafheart ( 1120885 )
      Bruce: We Bruces do this because we think American beer is like making love in a canoe?
      Bruce: Making love in a canoe?
      Bruce: yes, it is fucking close to water.

  • It's called puffery (Score:4, Informative)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:14PM (#28869195)

    Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery [wikipedia.org]
    Example: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31864 [theonion.com]

    • Re:It's called puffery (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pinckney ( 1098477 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:52PM (#28869973)
      But isn't reliability an objective quantity? Percent downtime, for example, would be an obvious way to measure reliability. From the same wikipedia page you linked to, both cheapness and safety are listed as objective rather than subjective claims and therefor not puffery; this would seem to be the same.
      • I agree with you on that, you might not be able to get an absolute perfect measure of reliability, but you can measure things like dropped calls, average through put, distance between towers and repair records, sure it's not perfect, but if you're doing those things better than the competition, I think that's a pretty reasonable way of demonstrating superior reliability.

      • But isn't reliability an objective quantity?

        My guess is you're right. They'll get away with "best", but "most reliable" will probably require them to back it up.

        • "Best" will depend on how it is defined. You and I (and AT&T)might include speed in our assessment. Verizon might insist that reliable == best, because speed doesn't matter if you can't connect.

          Of course, we all know it is nothing but marketing crap designed to seep into the minds of vapid TV viewers as they eyeball their televisions in a semi-comatose state between doses of "Ghost Whisperer" and "Survivor XXI: Lost in an Antarctic Crevasse".

          Instead of taking the court's valuable time with this

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gknoy ( 899301 )

        Is it reliable as in "Least Downtime", or as in "You can rely on us having a network for you no matter where you go"? (The proper term there would likely not be "reliable" but rather "extensive", I guess?)

      • The factors that go into determining reliability are objective, but the way you piece them together is not, I don't think.

        For example, you would want to consider up-time on a regional basis, but you would also want to consider up-time on a worldwide basis. How do you objectively weight these two measurements, especially when they might vary on a wide basis? Perhaps town A has 10% up-time, but it's the only town with that problem. Perhaps that leaves Verizon with a %99.999999999 world-wide up-time. But, they

  • I'm not even a huge fan of 3G anymore (Score:3, Informative)

    by bbhorrigan ( 1593919 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:14PM (#28869203)
    It does not even seem noticeably faster from EDGE, and for tethering it is just barely faster then EDGE or 1XEV. All I've found 3G good for is killing my battery.

    • 3G really has turned out to be disappointing, hasn't it? I know some people back East that make great use of the 3G network, but in my travels throughout the lower 48, I have not seen an improvement over EDGE. I'm not familiar with 1XEV, so I'm going to have to gazoogle it to see what's what.

    • Agree. We need to add some more Gs in there, so I can download music quickly and play it in my speakers that go all the way up to 11.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Evan Charlton ( 1498823 )
      One of the huge benefits of 3G is that you can have a data connection while on a voice call. This isn't possible with EDGE. This also means that it's possible for a data connection to prevent a voice call from being received, if it does not yield the radio for an extended period of time.
    • Really? In Olympia, WA, I can connect my N95 3G on AT&T to my laptop via USB or BT, go to speedtest and get around 700kbps+ down, 150kbps+ up. Definitely faster than EDGE for me, hell when I visit my mother-in-law's house I use it rather than her Wifi on 256kbps DSL.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by phorm ( 591458 )

      I think a lot of delay is due to the overall connection/negotiation times.I've noticed that both Edge/3G (Rogers wireless) seem similar in this. However, once that's done I've found that it's quite a bit faster on 3G.

      Loading your average webpage might not be much different. Loading a large image or downloading updates is more noticable.

  • Light beer (Score:4, Informative)

    by Stele ( 9443 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:15PM (#28869237) Homepage

    I can only hope that at some future date a court will decide which light beer truly is the best tasting.

    It's quite possible that none of them are the best tasting. You need flavor to actually have taste, don't you?

    </off-topic>

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 )

      It's quite possible that none of them are the best tasting. You need flavor to actually have taste, don't you?

      But they do have flavor. Several different kinds as I recall. You've got horse piss, skunk, moldy bread and vaginal yeast infection..... and those are just the offerings from Budweiser ;)

      • horse piss, skunk, moldy bread and vaginal yeast infection

        I'm suddenly tempted to start a beer company with precisely these flavors, if it doesn't exist already.

    • Re:Light beer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Foolicious ( 895952 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:26PM (#28870603)
      Don't ever *EVER* call beer off-topic, alright?

  • AT&T should focus (Score:5, Informative)

    by wardk ( 3037 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:16PM (#28869255) Journal

    on fixing their

    1. inadequate network
    2. price gouging
    3. treating iPhone users differently than other customers (see 2)
    4. crappy support (see 1)

    I have an iPhone, an original, I love it. but I am SERIOUSLY considering an alternative as I am just flat out disgusted with AT&T and APPLE for their behavior.
    FWIW, our home has 4 Macs, and no PCs.

    the iPhone needs to be opened up to other carriers, plain and simple.

    in my humble opinion, AT&T/Apple isn't a whole lot different than a mob operation and should be broken up with extreme predjudice.

    the bigger question I have is why does the Fed allow phone carriers to consistently scam their citizens?

    • the iPhone needs to be opened up to other carriers, plain and simple.

      One more year. If ATT wants to keep the exclusive arrangement going they'd better straighten up [techcrunch.com], otherwise the iPhone is a free agent in 2010.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 )

      the bigger question I have is why does the Fed allow phone carriers to consistently scam their citizens?

      Because Mr. Bernanke too busy trying to keep the financial system from melting down to worry about cell phones? ;)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) *

        A more interesting question for me is "do we really want federal courts to get in the business of establishing the truth of advertising claims? Don't we have the Consumers Union for such things?

        If this becomes commonplace, it could get crazy. For example, if 5 or more judges on the Supreme Court were avid Apple users, it could change the landscape of technology in the US. It might be a way to establish gay rights, though.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nine-times ( 778537 )

      It would be great if *someone* were focusing on creating a ubiquitous high-speed data network that provided open access to anyone using any hardware, so long as they were willing to pay a reasonable and flat monthly fee.

      Is that really such a crazy idea?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by wardk ( 3037 )

      so two of the best 3.0 features don't even exist, multimedia text and TETHERING.

      seems to me like a open and shut case of BAIT and SWITCH

      I never ever thought I would think of Apple as scummier than microsoft. but I am coming around.

      how is that google phone coming along?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      This is not just for Apple & AT&T but for any type of phone. Imho there should be no subsidized contracts. We should pay a low (flat-fee) price (~$10/mo) for phone & data and pay full price for unlocked, fully-functional cell phones. This would a) fix a lot of the waste problem used cell phones bring (every 12-18 months you wouldn't get a new one), b) force cell phone makers to make better (sturdier) phones - I'm looking at you Nokia, c) force cell phone makers to make better (more competent or

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbcad7 ( 771464 )

      1. inadequate network
      2. price gouging
      3. treating iPhone users differently than other customers (see 2)
      4. crappy support (see 1)

      The high prices are used to generate dollars to expand the network, which was undoubtedly needed due to the iPhone popularity, as when it came out it was one of very few that could do anything with 3G, and there are costs of the phone itself in the plan.. If you equate this with the PC world and internet access,, When it started to take off, it was damn expensive.. then connect

  • Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rm999 ( 775449 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:18PM (#28869285)

    "which rival AT&T called 'misleading'"

    I certainly hope AT&T isn't claiming it is the most reliable 3G network, because that wouldn't just be misleading - it would be lying.

    I can see their point though; in some areas of the country, I know Verizon is clearly not the most reliable network. Their claim is misleading, but I find it funny that of all companies AT&T decided to get into all this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by lorenlal ( 164133 )
      Well.. I have to admit that I'm impressed that Verizon isn't planning on backing down on this. In fact, they're essentially putting their lawyers where their mouth is... wait.. that didn't come out right.

    • Well, in my area, AT&T provides stonger signal and much higher reliability than verizon. My wife is a verizon user because her ENTIRE family is, and I'm on AT&T because I was a subscriber when the iPhone came out, and I have not yet found a reason not to have an iPhone, even with the price gouging, as the TCO is about $400 cheaper than a verizon blackberry for me over the 2 year term, once you include software, ringtones, blackberry data plan, replacement phone costs after 2 years (you only get $20

  • Bias (Score:3, Funny)

    by Alzheimers ( 467217 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:20PM (#28869355)

    Verizon just better hope that they don't get a judge who's actually used their service.

    Talk about a hostile witness!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zerth ( 26112 )

      Hey, Verizon isn't claiming to be reliable, just more reliable than the others.

      It's like saying you're the cleanest hotel in town. The rooms may be dirty, but all the other hotels are caked in shit.

      I think Verizon's plans suck, they overcharge, most of their phones are useless, and I can't wait until they drop CDMA in two years. But they're the only service that gets signal in the 1-stopsign villages I find myself driving through.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ironica ( 124657 )

        It's like saying you're the cleanest hotel in town. The rooms may be dirty, but all the other hotels are caked in shit.

        Wow, which town is that? I'd rather leave it out of my vacation plans (unless I'm going camping I guess).

  • This is a court case? (Score:5, Funny)

    by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:20PM (#28869357) Journal
    We're seriously wasting the court's time with this? Here's how I hope it plays out...

    Verizon: We're the best.
    AT&T: Nuh-uh!
    Verizon: Yeah-huh!
    AT&T: Nuh-uh!
    Judge:: Damn it! Both of you shut up! The court finds both carriers are limited to using Edge! Verizon may only use the phrase "Home of the Crap Lobster" and AT&T can only use the phrase "That's what she said"!
    T-Mobile: Good call, your honor. Catherine Zeta-Jones will be by tonight as promised.

    • Verizon may only use the phrase "Home of the Crap Lobster"

      I believe that Red Lobster has trademarked that one sometime in the late 80's.

    • and AT&T can only use the phrase "That's what she said"!

      Shouldn't that be "Your world... wiretapped."?

  • ATT dropped my calls... Verizon has not... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    When I had ATT I would talk to my GF everytime I'd get home. We both had Cingular, which turned into ATT. When that happened, almost every day our calls would get dropped, either in the low-peak hours or in the high-peak hours (from 4pm to 7pm) and a lot of times after getting dropped we wouldn't be able to call each other. I live RIGHT next to an ATT cellphone tower, so wtf I couldn't connect is beyond me, but once our contracts ended we switched over to verizon.

    We would talk the same amount and have NO dr

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 )

      Yeah.... my experience in the St. Louis, MO area is similar. I used Verizon for years, and then US Cellular for a couple years, before reluctantly switching to AT&T (only because I wanted to use the iPhone when it first came out).

      If AT&T actually has the audacity to challenge Verizon's advertising claims, then I think someone needs to challenge AT&T on their "More bars in more places" ad campaign, and ridiculous promises of "The least dropped calls of any network"!

      The only truth I found to the

    • I guess I'm pretty lucky with my AT&T then. In the last couple of years I've had maybe 1 dropped call and that was inside a concrete building. I get max bars (or close-to) at home. The only other times I had an issue were when I was in Vegas, and at a certain building in NY... I was getting a lot of static (and not just white noise) on the line and had to call back, but I'd imagine that was me being routed through a bad repeater or something.

      Depending on which way I drive to work though, there is a v

    • When I had ATT I would talk to my GF everytime I'd get home.

      (insert obligatory insults about /. readers (not) having girlfriends)

  • I can only hope that at some future date a court will decide which light beer truly is the best tasting.

    Somehow, I always knew that the winning side of Bud Bowl would end up being decided in court...

  • I can only hope that at some future date a court will decide which light beer truly is the best tasting.

    I can only hope that, in the future, people will understand the difference between things that can be objectively measured and things that can only be subjectively measured.

  • Well, if Verizon is "most reliable"...

    ...then Fox News is "fair and balanced", and Wal*Mart has "Always the lowest price. Always", right?

    • Well, if Verizon is "most reliable"... ...then Fox News is "fair and balanced", and Wal*Mart has "Always the lowest price. Always", right?

      Someone call $FAIRNEWS and a flea market, everyone should get a piece of the bs marketing pie.

  • This is the corporate/litigation equivalent of running to the teacher after being called a mean name by another kid.
  • Personally Verizon has pissed poor service when I had it and my calls were constantly dropped when i walked around. Granted the ATT service I have now isn't that much better and I cannot get 3G service due to both Nextel and Verizon having a monopoly hold on my town so they shutout any high speed cell service from ATT I can go two miles out of town and get 3G from ATT but now while I'm in town
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • only at some point, somebody has to be lying less than

    click

    bzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • According to PC World, Sprint was more reliable. http://www.pcworld.com/article/167391/a_day_in_the_life_of_3g.html [pcworld.com]

  • AT&T may have a point if it comes to the reliability of available bandwidth.

    If I have 5 nines uptime and I deliver 1mbps consistently, I am no more or less reliable than a provider that has 5 nines uptime and delivers 10mbps consistently.

    However, if that other provider has 5 nines of uptime, and delivers somewhere between 1mbps and 10mbps at any given moment, I may have a strong claim to reliability than they do. IMO, consistency is part of reliability.

  • Let's throw in a ruling of 'Biggest Assholes'.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by daoine_sidhe ( 619572 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:56PM (#28871157)
    Seriously, I don't care if the only other 'network' I have is a pair of goddamned tincans and some dental floss, I will never, under any circumstances, do business with any division of Verizon again after my experience with their Wireless division. I used to be a Unicel customer prior to Verizon purchasing them. I was a Verizon customer for about 1.5 days before their craptastic completely locked down phones and (at least in my area) truly sub-par voice quality just drove me crazy. Despite having the paperwork from both Unicel and Verizon saying that I had thirty days to cancel service, they jacked my bill from the ~$180 (three lines) to ~$650 due to 'early termination fees' and the like. When I complained they agreed to drop it to $380, never sent a new bill detailing the charges, and sent it directly to collections within a week. I'm still fighting with them over this, and I will never, ever allow myself to be suckered into anything with them again, I don't care if the service is free and comes with a solid gold ruby encrusted phone that grants wishes. Fuck Verizon and fuck their service. If Verizon was a person I wouldn't piss down their throat if their heart was on fire.

    • If Verizon was a person I wouldn't piss down their throat if their heart was on fire.

      You know, liquids aren't the only thing that can smother a fire, right?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Renraku ( 518261 )

      Verizon, like most cell phone companies, limit their expenses by skimping on customer service.

      This includes the systems that their support technicians, customer service agents, and billing agents use. If it's not in the system, as far as they're concerned, it doesn't exist. Meaning that you'll never get resolution out of tier 1 support unless it's something they handle 50 times a day.

  • Seriously, this is like an argument between two kids asking mommy who is right. Only difference being this is going to cost millions of dollars. Grow the $%^@^ up!

  • It said that AT&T's challenge "relies on the incorrect premise that speed is an essential element of the standard for measuring network reliability.'"

    Isn't that tantamount to admitting that your network is slow?

  • Shouldn't AT&T at least build a wireless network of some kind before they try to claim it's more reliable. What's that AT&T? More bars in more places?! At least Verizon's claim seems to be true.

  • Living in SE Wisconsin in a major metropolitan area, AT&T is not reliable at all for data, whether it is 3G or HSDPA. I would say that it is very poor.

    If I want good, reliable data transfer, I have to go to a major shopping mall where, regardless of the connection being 3G or HSDPA, I get full signal strength. I live about four miles away from there and if I want to do any kind of use of the AT&T Notwork, I have to see if the 3G or HSDPA signal is stronger and offer my prayers to the propagation god

  • Easy. A perfect pint [guinness.com] takes less than two minutes to pour!

  • Excellent speeds and reception. 9000+ bars all over major cities. Support is slow sometimes, and they need to make the billing portal easier to read so far as billing info goes, but the speeds are great. I get over 1 mbps within 1/4 mile of towers and never less than ~400 kbps everywhere else.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close