That New York Times Story is about giving a group one of the special 5 digit numbers for a texting campaign. That is not the same thing as "censoring messages it doesn't like."
The lower service after 2 years? And your proof is... "people say it all over the place"? Oh, yeah, that proves it. I have an old XV6600 (well over 4 years old) that I use as my "backup" and it still gets a solid signal. (And... I am even out of contract on my current phone... and looky... signal is fine). Maybe these people have been so rough on their phones that they aren't functioning properly after 2 years, but as for the rest of it... as somebody else said... rubbish.
And once again, you declare Verizon "the worst" without giving any real reason.
I will agree with you on one point, Verizon's plans are minute per minute a bit more than the competition. It is true. But their network is second to no one right now. Period. I have been on business trips where people on other carriers had to borrow my phone because they had no signal. THAT is why I am willing to pay them a bit more for their service.
Oh, I will even agree with you on another... sort of. It is true that Verizon has had a (well earned) reputation of locking down their phones to sell services. They made a commitment to change that (almost) 2 years ago, and you have begun to see that on the phones released this year, and ultimately coming up with a full fledged "open" phone in the Droid... so this argument, while it WAS true, no longer is the case.
You can keep crying, but the fact is, nothing you are saying is holding any water. Does each company have their good and bad points? Of course. Sprint has one of the fastest data networks... why? They have no customers. at&t has the Jesus phone... and a network that is crushed under the weight of data from that phone. T-Mobile has lousy coverage... but good customer service. Verizon has the best network... but you pay for it. In the end, everybody is willing to sacrifice something in order to get what they think is the best compromise for them. (Paying more for the best network, accepting spotty coverage in order to save a few $$$, deal with no MMS for a long time in order to get the "cool" phone or... well... I don't know why anybody is still with Sprint... so I will leave that one alone... OK, OK.. maybe to get the Pre). Get over it. We can all pick on each others carriers for one reason or another, since NONE are perfect.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@uwaga dude
That New York Times Story is about giving a group one of the special 5 digit numbers for a texting campaign. That is not the same thing as "censoring messages it doesn't like."
The lower service after 2 years? And your proof is... "people say it all over the place"? Oh, yeah, that proves it. I have an old XV6600 (well over 4 years old) that I use as my "backup" and it still gets a solid signal. (And... I am even out of contract on my current phone... and looky... signal is fine). Maybe these people have been so rough on their phones that they aren't functioning properly after 2 years, but as for the rest of it... as somebody else said... rubbish.
And once again, you declare Verizon "the worst" without giving any real reason.
I will agree with you on one point, Verizon's plans are minute per minute a bit more than the competition. It is true. But their network is second to no one right now. Period. I have been on business trips where people on other carriers had to borrow my phone because they had no signal. THAT is why I am willing to pay them a bit more for their service.
Oh, I will even agree with you on another... sort of. It is true that Verizon has had a (well earned) reputation of locking down their phones to sell services. They made a commitment to change that (almost) 2 years ago, and you have begun to see that on the phones released this year, and ultimately coming up with a full fledged "open" phone in the Droid... so this argument, while it WAS true, no longer is the case.
You can keep crying, but the fact is, nothing you are saying is holding any water. Does each company have their good and bad points? Of course. Sprint has one of the fastest data networks... why? They have no customers. at&t has the Jesus phone... and a network that is crushed under the weight of data from that phone. T-Mobile has lousy coverage... but good customer service. Verizon has the best network... but you pay for it. In the end, everybody is willing to sacrifice something in order to get what they think is the best compromise for them. (Paying more for the best network, accepting spotty coverage in order to save a few $$$, deal with no MMS for a long time in order to get the "cool" phone or... well... I don't know why anybody is still with Sprint... so I will leave that one alone... OK, OK.. maybe to get the Pre). Get over it. We can all pick on each others carriers for one reason or another, since NONE are perfect.