Verizon claims coverage in 233 Countries out of 192!

...I guess they didn't have a map for that :rotfl:

 

It sounds to me like a marketing exaggeration intentionally not fully explained. Since there were over 200+ nations/territories at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Verizon's claim is probably true, only in the number of considered countries/territories.

What the UN shows is politically correct (not talking about being "PC"), but there are many more locations not considered official nations, but are nonetheless in existence as national entities.

Of course Verizon's claim is quite a stretch when you consider how they make the claim (by them having a few full CDMA/GSM phones and their ability to rent GSM phones for world travel, if needed). Though they are technically correct, it does require some caveats and a much clearer explanation than they want to give. It isn't as easy or cheap to use your "World" phone as they make it seem, even though it can be done.

Nice try Verizon...

I'm thinking they feel most people won't bother to check how many "actual" nations there are in the world. Think about it, 230+ sounds a lot better than 192.

 

No problem, Chris.

Many a time I wonder what's behind Verizon's logic. Sometimes it makes sense, as in this case, but most times (lately anyway), it doesn't.

Just thought I'd give my take behind this latest ad.

 

This was an interesting article Chris. Thanks for posting it.

Apparently they went to AT&T's website which claims the following: "More wireless AT&T phones work in more places around the world than any other U.S. carrier. Stay connected while traveling to more than 220 countries and on more than 130 cruise ships, and access email and the Internet in more than 195 countries."

So since AT&T claims more than 220 countries (Wireless International Rates - Wireless from AT&T, even though there are officially only 192 countries according to the U.N.), Verizon had to make themselves look better and claim a larger number. In my opinion, both companies are not stating the correct facts when comparing to what the U.N. recognizes as the official number. But then again, Mike makes a good point in his post. :thumb:

 

Great article!

 

Meh... I think the terminology of the advertisement is nothing compared to all the shadiness that they (and the others in the Big 4) do. The industry is crooked, but I think with these smaller carriers and the free market it will clean itself up. Now lets just hope that the FCC doesn't try to "Fix" the industry. They are easily bought off.

I still think 233 vs. 192 is hilarious. Thanks for the post!