1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

ATT vs. Verizon

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Brian Grigg, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     



    › See More: ATT vs. Verizon
  2. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  3. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  4. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  5. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  6. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  7. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  8. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  9. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  10. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  11. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  12. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  13. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  14. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  15. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  16. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  17. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  18. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  19. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     
  20. "Dan Albrich" <junkmail@shaney.uoregon.edui> wrote:

    >Hello Brian-
    >
    >It's actually really important to mention where you are so that we can
    >better help you. As much as people argue relentlessly over which is better,
    >the basic issue is that each company has its merits.
    >
    >Coverage wise, I do not agree that Verizon is better-- it all depends on
    >where you work, live and travel. For example, Verizon has zero native
    >coverage just south of Eugene until you get quite a ways into California.


    It doesn't really matter whether the coverage is native, extended area
    (non-native but no roaming fee), or roaming, as long as you have
    coverage. You might not get the same level of service, but you'll be
    able to make calls.

    >Verizon can roam, but coverage and features aren't ideal. AT&T has more
    >native coverage in southern Oregon, and their GSM system provides completely
    >seemless roaming options and good coverage from here all the way down I5.


    Not south of Dunsmuir before Redding it doesn't, or at least it didn't
    last year.

    >I'm just giving you one specific example from my area to show you that
    >depending on which location you refer to, Verizon may not be the best
    >choice.
    >
    >Some biased info/opinion:
    >
    >CUSTOMER SERVICE wise, Verizon wins hands down (in my opinion).


    Yes. AT&TWS used to have good customer service, and they threw it away.

    >COVERAGE wise- it all depends. Study the maps, GSM coverage (sum in total)
    >is less than either CDMA/analog or TDMA/analog so you need to study
    >available coverage maps to understand if GSM works for you. [The winner is
    >which works best for you]


    Yes, but you can't really tell from the maps. If the map shows no
    coverage, there probably won't be coverage, but showing coverage doesn't
    mean that you can make calls. ATTWS maps show that Broadway in
    Sacramento next to I-80/US50 has coverage, but it's spotty at best.
    Ditto parts of downtown Seattle near the convention center, and parts of
    Atlanta. You have to try the phone you want in the places you want to
    use it.

    >DATA- Free data can be had on Verizon, but no data when roaming. AT&T has
    >good data service that works even when you roam (very appealing to me) but
    >they charge something for it.


    I liked the original ATTWS PocketNet. Then they got rid of that and
    switch to mMode. Then they modified mMode to make everything take twice
    as many clicks and twice as much time to do what I wanted to do
    (basically, weather and email).

    >ROAMING - GSM roaming is seemless. Verizon roaming means you can still place
    >and receive calls but you lose basic features -- even things like voicemail
    >indication don't generally work when roaming.


    That's a bummer, but you can still make calls. Also, the home area in
    the America's Choice network is most of the populated area of the United
    States, so the real distinction is not between home and roaming but
    between All-digital and everything else.

    >PHONES - no contest, AT&T wins, and will probably always win. Verizon has
    >never carried any "cool" phones and probably never will. If Verizon had
    >something like the T616, I'd change my mind.


    No phones that support infrared. That would have made use with my Palm
    much easier. No Bluetooth, but supposedly that's being considered.

    >Don't jump to Verizon thinking they'll eventually carry a phone you like.
    >I've been with them now for years, and I've never been pleased with their
    >phone selection, and feel convinced it will never improve.


    I like my VX440B, but of course they've dropped that model.

    >COST - AT&T is cheaper in my area than Verizon. One could argue you get
    >what you pay for.


    It's about the same for me.


    ==
    Jack Hamilton
    jfh@acm.org

    ==
    In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
    And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
    Edward Gibbons
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?