A Verizon reality check | Hacker News Reader

A Verizon reality check

marco.org

11 pointsanderzole25 comments

A Marco.org Reality Check

"There would almost definitely be a Verizon Wireless logo somewhere on the iPhone’s case, probably on both the front and back. There may be separate Verizon music, video, and app store icons that you can’t delete. At least one major feature may be disabled at Verizon’s request — say, turn-by-turn navigation — because they want to sell you their own version for an additional monthly fee. Verizon may want a cut of any iTunes or App Store revenue from on-device purchases, the cost of which Apple would probably happily pass along to either users or developers. (My guess: Developers.)"

Apple wouldn't ever let Verizon pull that crap, which is exactly why the iPhone is on AT&T now. They went to Verizon and Verizon didn't want to play ball, there is no way in hell Steve would compromise on the user experience now just to be on Verizon.

1. My HTC Incredible has 1 Verizon logo on the front, under the earpiece and it's tiny. 2. There are no Verizon icons I can't delete. There is a separate Verizon app store in the Android market, though. 3. Google Maps offers great turn-by-turn on my phone. Free. 4. MP3 stores are available on Android.

yawn

Uhm.. just to clarify. There isn't an alternate Verizon app-store. There is a Verizon 'channel' in the standard google marketplace app. There are 'top free', 'top paid', and 'verizon' options.

  2. There are no Verizon icons I can't delete.

AFAIK, Verizon does have a boot logo on the HTC Incredible. Not the most intrusive thing, but I'm not aware of a way to delete that icon.

Reflash.

Our company's office in SOMA, San Francisco has zero AT&T reception. If you are in our conference room and someone calls, your iPhone will not ring.

The "reality check" should be going to people who think free visual voicemail and small icons on the hardware are in any way significant issues compared to the magnitude of how much worse AT&T's network is.

SoCal here. and yes. pratically i only get the Edge icon on AT&T. Tmobile had NO SIGNAL on my office (but my device didn't supported their 3G frequencies, which are a joke in itself, btw.)

But, the edge speeds on tmobile were better then the 3g speeds on AT&T. i kid you not. i did real benchmarks with a tethered computer.

anyway. was going to get the droid on verizon, then the day i decided to go to the store, they had just ended the get-another-free promotion. so i went at&t. now i regret it. not that i would be happy on verizon either. it's a loose-loose with mobile. always.

Hear, hear.

Last time I've had Verizon was 3 years ago, and I got service EVERYWHERE, and I live in the same area as the author - NYC/Manhattan. Of course, everyone's experience is their own, but I think their network couldn't have become that much worse all of a sudden.

And as everybody with an iPhone knows, AT&T is hell. Just today, I got a whole bunch of calls that never made it to my phone. Discovered that there were new voicemails hours ago. And I'm sitting in my office, right next to a window, in an area where I usually get 4 bars.

The biggest problem with Verizon and the original reason that I switched is they (used to) not have any good phones. Now they do, and hopefully once they get iPhone there won't be any reason to stay on God-awful AT&T network.

* They’ll probably even charge separately for Visual Voicemail. *

Let me be one to mention that this very likely wont be the only thing Verizon locks you out of for no particular reason. I'm unable to find the link currently, but a prime example of why I'll never sign up to Verizon again is just this. A user who owned a Motorola Droid downloaded Skype, and planned to use it over WiFi in areas where he'd incur roaming fees, or had bad reception.

Verizon actually managed to find a way to disable the voice feature of Skype, restricting it only to use in areas with network coverage.

That's not an isolated example.

> Verizon actually managed to find a way to disable the voice feature of Skype, restricting it only to use in areas with network coverage.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they want to force a user to use Skype in network coverage areas? What does Verizon gain when you can't use Skype outside of the network?

If anything I would think that Verizon would disable Skype when you are in their network area, and only let you use it outside of that area.

A couple of links

http://connectedplanetonline.com/mobile-apps/news/verizon-sk...

http://www.skypejournal.com/2010/04/skype-on-verizon-android...

Now, it's worth noting that while this problem has been somewhat 'fixed' meaning you can run Skype over wifi for applications like Instant Messaging/Chat, you still have to use the Verizon Network in order to actually make calls.

I agree it's nonsensical, but Verizon claims the restriction is necessary to satisfy regulations. See:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100415/0911259022.shtml

riiight. like mobile cias make any sense.

If they can congest their network and loose some calls, so be it. everyone has a bazilion minutes nowadays, it's not like they will pay any extra for those calls. but just a few have unlimited data.

So the changes are that they will be able to penny you to death on skype data charges, and it will cost them just a couple dropped/bad quality calls eventually. no biggie. ...it's not like anyone can complain or anything.

Be be fair, the reason is that they partnered with Skype to transfer Skype calls over their voice network for free. While I don't like it, now that they are officially supporting it, I can understand how WiFi could be a big reliability and support problem.

It's a trade-off but having the reliability and quality of their voice network for free with Skype is quite nice.

Oh, absolutely. This is great for Skype users who need a constant connection to get in contact with their Skype contacts. But it seems only somewhat disingenuous that a service like Skype which works fine on it's ancestor platform (the computer) doesn't have the requirement of a third-party network to operate, while the mobile version does.

Or maybe I'm missing the point

Why is Verizon the only other carrier in the race here? Is there a reason Sprint and T-Mobile can't carry the iPhone, or that nobody seems to care if they do? Sprint has smartphone plans with unlimited nights/weekends, unlimited text and picture messaging, and unlimited data services for $69.99/month. T-Mobile has similar for $59.99/month without a contract or $69.99/month with one. They'd both be far cheaper than anything Verizon would offer.

People like Verizon because they plaster ads everywhere. T-Mobile and Sprint are quieter.

"Give a man a reputation as an early riser, and that man can sleep till noon."

Not that I necessarily agree. I haven't used Verizon in years. But back then I switched to AT&T (Cingular) because they had better service in my area.

The last two points are fair, the first two (re: data) simply are not. If you have significant problems with dropped calls in Manhattan you should have your specific device checked out.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you could see a strong signal outside, go inside and get no reception, and conclude that's due to the carrier. Like Verizon uses some sort of cheap radio waves that don't go through walls while AT&T uses the premium ones.

People might be relating this to differences in the clarity of (analog-style) radio stations, where you would get worse reception if the station wasn't transmitting at a high enough power for your radio to get a clear signal.

Carries can save money by having less towers but by using higher transmit power. I have heard that this can show up as the phone reporting full bars, but not being able to initiate/receive calls due to insufficient transmit power in the phone.

While possible, that doesn't seem likely. Doesn't the phone have to do some sort of handshake with the tower to even show the bars? Or are you saying that the phone only has enough power to do the handshake?

My understanding is that when the phone is idle, bars are commonly measured based only on the quality and strength of the incoming signal. The outgoing signal might be stable enough for a handshake but not for a call.

Of course the other possible explanation for full bars but no calls is that the network is busy.

All but T-Mobile have licenses for 850mhz, which propagates through walls better. Though that would only explain why T-Mobile would have worse reception indoors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com