[JRSCCivic98]

If you say so. I just spoke facts, maybe you can try addressing facts, and save your smart a$$ comments. Fact is 3G is just 3rd generation and Verizon, Sprint, ATT, and Alltell, and maybe others, all have a 3G network, yet ATT is the only one to advertise theirs as simply "3G", that's pretty ironic, looking at the fact that they were late to the 3G game, following both Verizon and Sprint. I would never suggest that Verizon should sue ATT, however, it would cause Verizon to change their marketing so that customers won't be confused, and so they understand that they also have a 3G network. You got anymore smart a$$ bull to share?

Ahh yes, I see you're not a connoisseur of sarcasm. Let me put this in shorter terms. Perhaps I should have simply said that "I wouldn't put it past Verizon to try and sue AT&T for stealing their thunder." Thunder, which I might add, anyone with a brain should have known was in place years ago. After all, it would be nothing different then Verizon suing Time Warner for its ads in reference to FiOS vs Cable.

[briankeith513]

Ahh yes, I see you're not a connoisseur of sarcasm. Let me put this in shorter terms. Perhaps I should have simply said that "I wouldn't put it past Verizon to try and sue AT&T for stealing their thunder." Thunder, which I might add, anyone with a brain should have known was in place years ago. After all, it would be nothing different then Verizon suing Time Warner for its ads in reference to FiOS vs Cable.

Ummm, if you read my posts in this regard, they were making valid points about the actual topic that was presented. I presented facts that would explain why Verizon would start marketing their 3G network as being 3G as ATT is doing. Yet, instead of responding to that, you disregard that completely, only to put a shot in that Verizon might try to sue ATT? I don't understand your point. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I don't suggest that they do that, but I'd think anyone with sense would understand why they'd be pretty irritated. If I released a 3G network first, under the name EVDO, which is the technology, and a year or 2 later, you release a 3G Network, but instead of advertising it as HSDPA, or UMTS, or whatever, you advertise/market it as 3G, as if this may be exclusive to you. In effect, whether it was done for this purpose or not, it has confused many customers into thinking that you offer 3G speeds, but I do not, although in actuality, I offered 3G speeds before you did. This would cause me to be quite irritated, and would seem sort of underhanded. If this is in fact legal, then I do say that it is pure genius though.

[JRSCCivic98]

Ummm, if you read my posts in this regard, they were making valid points about the actual topic that was presented. I presented facts that would explain why Verizon would start marketing their 3G network as being 3G as ATT is doing. Yet, instead of responding to that, you disregard that completely, only to put a shot in that Verizon might try to sue ATT? I don't understand your point. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I don't suggest that they do that, but I'd think anyone with sense would understand why they'd be pretty irritated. If I released a 3G network first, under the name EVDO, which is the technology, and a year or 2 later, you release a 3G Network, but instead of advertising it as HSDPA, or UMTS, or whatever, you advertise/market it as 3G, as if this may be exclusive to you. In effect, whether it was done for this purpose or not, it has confused many customers into thinking that you offer 3G speeds, but I do not, although in actuality, I offered 3G speeds before you did. This would cause me to be quite irritated, and would seem sort of underhanded. If this is in fact legal, then I do say that it is pure genius though.

No kidding Captain Obvious. Geez man, drink some decalf or something. I know Verizon had 3G wayyyy before AT&T did. Who doesn't? Perhaps only morons don't, but that's another discussion. I was only quoting your factual post as an example as to what VZW might use as their argument. The post was meant as a joke Howdy. I guess you didn't get it as you obviously didn't get the previous one either. How about this... I'm going to sue you now for getting too serious on this discussion. How's that? Are you going to take that seriously too? Did you forget that this is America and people sue cities because they tripped on the sidewalk like idiots? Relax man, we're all on the same team here. I just don't wear a red shirt. lol

[Stang68]

I think perhaps someone misinterpreted Rev A as being 4G, which is incorrect as LTE will obviously be their 4G technology. I however find it funny how recently Verizon has started to mention their network as being 3G. It's only happened in commercials since the whole AT&T 3G naming convention became a part of their advertising. I remember having a phone 2 years ago from VZW that had 3G CDMA written on the back, but no one made a big deal about it back then.

Great post! I agree, "3G" wasn't used until AT&T and the iPhone made it cool to say! I use my Curve 8330 and people on AT&T are like, "Well, does it have 3G? 'Cuz thats all the rage now, only the iPhone has it." I throw it back in their face and say my Curve had 3G before the iPhone 3G was even announced. *Sigh* oh how I love Apple computers, but I hate the people that company attracts.

I have a problem with this entire post but this is the most blatant BULL SH IT you posted out of the whole post. Rev A is comparable to AT&T's 3G. Depending on who you talk to would be the answer you get on which one is faster, but in NO way will one "blow the **** out" of either as far as speed goes. Maybe you need to do some more research on the subject before you post an outright lie such as it is.

A little touchy, there?

[briankeith513]

No kidding Captain Obvious. Geez man, drink some decalf or something. I know Verizon had 3G wayyyy before AT&T did. Who doesn't? Perhaps only morons don't, but that's another discussion. I was only quoting your factual post as an example as to what VZW might use as their argument. The post was meant as a joke Howdy. I guess you didn't get it as you obviously didn't get the previous one either. How about this... I'm going to sue you now for getting too serious on this discussion. How's that? Are you going to take that seriously too? Did you forget that this is America and people sue cities because they tripped on the sidewalk like idiots? Relax man, we're all on the same team here. I just don't wear a red shirt. lol

Ahh, I didn't recognize that your brand of sarcasm involved ignoring the point of discussion and adding a sarcastic joke. I should have realized that, but it's hard to decipher because some of your posts actually have real meaning, and bring out valid points, and others seem to be just negative, overly critical, or just sarcastic.

[JRSCCivic98]

Ahh, I didn't recognize that your brand of sarcasm involved ignoring the point of discussion and adding a sarcastic joke. I should have realized that, but it's hard to decipher because some of your posts actually have real meaning, and bring out valid points, and others seem to be just negative, overly critical, or just sarcastic.

lol, I tried to help people understand this aspect of me by using a House avatar, but perhaps you've never seen that show. If you had, you'd probably completely understand my attitude. Anyway, glad we can be friends again.

[Pholey22]

lol, I tried to help people understand this aspect of me by using a House avatar, but perhaps you've never seen that show. If you had, you'd probably completely understand my attitude. Anyway, glad we can be friends again.

Off subject...HOUSE rocks!!! And yes, I too love sarcasm...is that bad?

[briankeith513]

lol, I tried to help people understand this aspect of me by using a House avatar, but perhaps you've never seen that show. If you had, you'd probably completely understand my attitude. Anyway, glad we can be friends again.

Haha, I've only seen parts of the show. And I believe that you are House, lol it's not just your avatar.

[crescent]

I have a problem with this entire post but this is the most blatant BULL SH IT you posted out of the whole post. Rev A is comparable to AT&T's 3G. Depending on who you talk to would be the answer you get on which one is faster, but in NO way will one "blow the **** out" of either as far as speed goes. Maybe you need to do some more research on the subject before you post an outright lie such as it is.

my curve on vzw spanks a 3g iphone speed

rev a supa dupa fast

do a side by side test of a att air card and a vzw air card.

CDMA > GSM

thank you and have a good day.

[avt123]

my curve on vzw spanks a 3g iphone speed

rev a supa dupa fast

do a side by side test of a att air card and a vzw air card.

CDMA > GSM

thank you and have a good day.

And I can tell you when putting my Sprint Curve (evdo) and my iPhone 3G (hspda) side by side my iPhone is faster. It's all about the area.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Crucial_Xtreme]

my curve on vzw spanks a 3g iphone speed

rev a supa dupa fast

do a side by side test of a att air card and a vzw air card.

CDMA > GSM

thank you and have a good day.

Your actual knowledge on the subject shows your ignorance, and lets everyone know exactly how much you actually do not know, hence your original statement. But you may continue living in your dream world as long as it helps you sleep better at night. Needless to say, it's your lie and you may tell it how you want.

[toastyz71]

Your actual knowledge on the subject shows your ignorance, and lets everyone know exactly how much you actually do not know, hence your original statement. But you may continue living in your dream world as long as it helps you sleep better at night. Needless to say, it's your lie and you may tell it how you want.

part of what he (CX) means is that the curve you have is NOT REV A. it's REV 0.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

part of what he (CX) means is that the curve you have is NOT REV A. it's REV 0.

Yep, but I didn't mention it because I don't want to argue. But.. I just don't want someone who has zero knowledge on the subject to see his post and assume he knows what he's talking about and that CDMA Rev A is faster than AT&T's 3G network. As someone else said, a lot of it depends on location. And there are other variables, but surely one isn't loads faster than another. Pretty much even to be quite honest. I will add since I work exclusively with Blackberrys a 8830 with Rev 0 is not faster than the Iphone 3G. Anyways, I'm done here.

[Crackberrykills]

Your actual knowledge on the subject shows your ignorance, and lets everyone know exactly how much you actually do not know, hence your original statement. But you may continue living in your dream world as long as it helps you sleep better at night. Needless to say, it's your lie and you may tell it how you want.

Damn X. Why do people want to test you? I do not understand. Oh well.

[toastyz71]

Yep, but I didn't mention it because I don't want to argue. But.. I just don't want someone who has zero knowledge on the subject to see his post and assume he knows what he's talking about and that CDMA Rev A is faster than AT&T's 3G network. As someone else said, a lot of it depends on location. And there are other variables, but surely one isn't loads faster than another. Pretty much even to be quite honest. I will add since I work exclusively with Blackberrys a 8830 with Rev 0 is not faster than the Iphone 3G. Anyways, I'm done here.

i see your point.

[crescent]

part of what he (CX) means is that the curve you have is NOT REV A. it's REV 0.

i am aware and that is my point.