How much do those luke wilson AT&T commercials SUCK

[dwell]

What happened to Luke? He looks like a Bobblehead now.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Can you explain the situation where you had to go "Hang on---I need to send a Tweet..."?

"Hang on, let me SSH into the server and check that for you."

or hey, let me ping that for you..it's handy in my line of work.

 

[Glitchny]

I'm interested why AT&T and Verizon are destroying each other while Sprint is quietly doing quite well.

After releasing their own line of Android phones, I renewed my contract and I have had no problems with Sprint.

-Kevin

Last I heard Sprint is doing the opposite of well.

 

[Tempered81]

My brother and I called him "Fat Head Luke".

 

[PingSpike]

Guess I'm not the only one that was distracted from what the commercial was actually about by Luke Wilson's fatness. He doesn't carry extra weight to well, grows a gut and chipmunk cheeks.

 

[Paulson]

The problem is AT&T's edge service sucks horribly... I live in Minnesota and have 3G (we got it recently) however if I travel to Sioux Falls SD, along the way I have no service (literally no service) or wander onto a partner edge clusterf*ck where I have no data (apparently I used too much off network bandwidth streaming pandora when I didn't even know I was off network and they decided to punish me with no more off network bandwidth.)

It's pretty sad that AT&T won't let the iPhone tell you when you're off network by default until it's to late to realize it and they ban you from using off network data (oh yeah you can still make calls...) big f'n deal.

If Verizon gets the iPhone I'd drop AT&T immediately... at least I'd have coverage and not "on network>off network>no service>off network>off network>network>no service on a 100 mile trip.

 

[ElFenix]

Well it's not the white spots you see in the Verizon commercial that makes ATT's 3G coverage so bad. Even with 75% of the population covered or whatever they claim, the problem is the existing network simply can't handle the traffic going through. I believe SF and Chicago are long due for class action law suits. It might even be spotty here as in the towers don't completely cover our whole area because I get 2G/3G switching in and out in downtown SF next to the Apple store.

The commercial isn't entirely false. 7.2mbps HSPA is nice but seriously, do we even come close in real world testing? NOPE. But it is on paper the FASTEST... Hah.

how much of their 3G network is the faster HSPA variant? i'm going to guess not much. saying you have the fastest nationwide 3G network because of a couple towers in 2 or 3 cities seems like false advertising to me.

If Verizon gets the iPhone I'd drop AT&T immediately... at least I'd have coverage and not "on network>off network>no service>off network>off network>network>no service on a 100 mile trip.

some people have mifi's from verizon or sprint that they use their iphone with.

 

[thepd7]

AT&T's complaint is that Verizon's ads lead people to believe that AT&T lacks coverage in large areas of the country. AT&T's ads are just stating that there is coverage in most of the country. What's the problem with that?

Most cell phone users have no need for 3G and don't even know what 3G is, so Verizon's ads would be confusing to them.

There's isn't coverage in most of the country, there's coverage in the population dense areas.

Not to mention that AT&T claims coverage for 97% of Americans while many parts of the US, even on their own map have zero coverage...not a great traveling cell network.

Verizon on the other hand smashes AT&T on basic coverage AND 3G coverage.

I don't use Verizon because it is an expensive provider...but come on AT&T they have your number on this one.

Right, ATT might cover 97% of people AT HOME. I didn't buy a cell phone to use it where I live, if that was the case I'd pay $10 for a land line with better quality. I bought a cell phone to travel and it's annoying as hell to drop calls on the road.

It's so sad ATT Wireless is still around. I would venture to guess if Apple had gone with Verizon, ATT would be a 3rd rate prepaid mobile company lower than T-Mobile.

In lots of places, yes. The network is actually pretty good here in Texas (EDGE that is, I never use 3G because it's so spotty if you are actually moving).

 

[ElFenix]

In lots of places, yes. The network is actually pretty good here in Texas (EDGE that is, I never use 3G because it's so spotty if you are actually moving).

technically edge is 3g. but then, so is 1xrtt. each is about as fast a a shotgun 56k modem

 

[mugs]

There's isn't coverage in most of the country, there's coverage in the population dense areas.

There is coverage in most of the country excluding Alaska:
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice

Not as good as Verizon's
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController

but also not nearly as bad as many people would mistakenly believe based on Verizon's ads about AT&T's 3G coverage. And that's the whole point of AT&T's new ads, to correct people's misunderstandings.

I don't like AT&T either; I only use AT&T because my employer will only pay my bill if I use AT&T. I'd love to go back to Verizon. I have no bias in favor of AT&T, I believe I'm looking at this objectively.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

FWIW I manage a decently sized account with AT&T. I emailed my account rep and let her know what I thought about all of this -

We went from Verizon to AT&T, and the number of users complaining about dropped calls, phones locking up while on the highway, etc etc has gone up 3x at least.

It really makes AT&T look bad.. Not just from a corp standpoint, but none of my employees will use AT&T for home either unless they have an iPhone

 

[squirrel dog]

Notice no telco needed any Govmnt money/bailout ? The ex AT&T ceo is now running what the gov car thing? (I think)......

 

[slayer202]

There is coverage in most of the country excluding Alaska:
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice

Not as good as Verizon's
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController

but also not nearly as bad as many people would mistakenly believe based on Verizon's ads about AT&T's 3G coverage. And that's the whole point of AT&T's new ads, to correct people's misunderstandings.

I don't like AT&T either; I only use AT&T because my employer will only pay my bill if I use AT&T. I'd love to go back to Verizon. I have no bias in favor of AT&T, I believe I'm looking at this objectively.

How is AT&T correcting people's misunderstandings? Verizon shows the AT&T 3G map. If you are saying their normal coverage is good enough to cover the blank spots, fine, but that isn't what AT&T is saying. In the commercials is looks like they are saying verizon is wrong and look at our 3G coverage. Too bad that isn't their 3G coverage

 

[GeekDrew]

How is AT&T correcting people's misunderstandings? Verizon shows the AT&T 3G map. If you are saying their normal coverage is good enough to cover the blank spots, fine, but that isn't what AT&T is saying. In the commercials is looks like they are saying verizon is wrong and look at our 3G coverage. Too bad that isn't their 3G coverage

But they *aren't* saying that Verizon is wrong, and here is our 3G coverage -- they're saying that the Verizon commercials are misleading, and here is our coverage.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

technically edge is 3g. but then, so is 1xrtt. each is about as fast a a shotgun 56k modem

Both are considered 2.5G.... bridges to 3G essentially. Just like there's 4.5G fighters versus the true 5th generation F22s.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

how much of their 3G network is the faster HSPA variant? i'm going to guess not much. saying you have the fastest nationwide 3G network because of a couple towers in 2 or 3 cities seems like false advertising to me.

I wouldn't say it's a couple towers. I believe most of the HSDPA is 3.6mbps already. We don't even get 3.6mbps even in 3.6mbps regions. The 7.2mbps is in select cities.

The problem isn't they have 1 or two towers only with this, it's just that their network backbone can't give you your full speed. You know when people bitch about Comcast getting only 3mbps when their plan is supposed to be 12mbps? Yeah. Same deal.

 

[Fritzo]

"Hang on, let me SSH into the server and check that for you."

or hey, let me ping that for you..it's handy in my line of work.

Ahhhh....I see. Not really selling point though.

 

[ElFenix]

Both are considered 2.5G.... bridges to 3G essentially. Just like there's 4.5G fighters versus the true 5th generation F22s.

ITU 3G spec is what it is

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

It's bad when most people I know who use AT&T see those verizon commercials and go "seriously, man AT&T does suck" and after they watch the AT&T commercials go "Man, AT&T really does suck".

I don't think they're really convincing people they're better with them.

Yeah that would be me. an AT&T user that knows Verizon is much better but work is paying for it so whatever. I never had a dropped call with Verizon and seemed to have 3g service wherever I went.

 

[Gothgar]

Now, while I agree that ATT's commercial sucked, I was much more annoyed by the shitty Verizon ones...

"there's a map for that"

oh please... gimme a fucking break....

 

[Deeko]

How about that one with the checkboxes where he goes "What service allows you to surf the web AND talk on the phone at the same time? ATT!"

WTF? Who DOES this?????

Yea, when I had a G1 and T-Mobile I could do this, but certainly never did.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

verizon has had the best tv ads for a while. much better than the "harmless" stupid crap from comcast, at&t and microsoft.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Ahhhh....I see. Not really selling point though.

I agree, but you don't see them advertising it anyway...except now, AT&T is trying to show what they've got against Verizon.

I have a feeling the iPhone will be on Verizon soon!

 

[slayer202]

But they *aren't* saying that Verizon is wrong, and here is our 3G coverage -- they're saying that the Verizon commercials are misleading, and here is our coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjwBHqa6lZI

watch that and try to honestly believe what you just said. If they wanted to clear things up then they should have said you "you don't need 3G all the time and you can still get coverage without it" but instead they made it seem like verizon is lying. Responding to verizon with a claim that verizon doesn't dispute is just lame.

Its black and white.

 

[GeekDrew]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjwBHqa6lZI

watch that and try to honestly believe what you just said. If they wanted to clear things up then they should have said you "you don't need 3G all the time and you can still get coverage without it" but instead they made it seem like verizon is lying. Responding to verizon with a claim that verizon doesn't dispute is just lame.

Its black and white.

I agree that it is black-and-white, to informed consumers, such as we are. Most are not as well-informed. I still completely stand by my argument that AT&T is stating that Verizon is misleading (you say lying, but nowhere do they say that -- they say that they are "setting the record straight"), and then the commercial goes to hell trying to prove the point that they have excellent coverage. Nowhere does AT&T say "3G". They won't say that Verizon is lying, because they aren't. They aren't going to say that you don't need 3G, because 1) that's bad marketing, and 2) they're trying to push 3G too, elsewhere.