or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T bolsters 4G network plans with $1.9B spectrum purchase
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T bolsters 4G network plans with $1.9B spectrum purchase

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
AT&T, the exclusive U.S. wireless carrier of Apple's iPhone, announced on Monday that it has agreed to purchase $1.925 billion worth of wireless spectrum from Qualcomm for its forthcoming 4G network.

AT&T has agreed to purchase spectrum licenses from Qualcomm in the lower 700 MHz frequency band. The $1.925 acquisition is said to bolster AT&T's ability to provide an advanced 4G mobile broadband service "in the years ahead," the company said in a press release.

The spectrum being sold to AT&T is currently licensed to FLO TV, but that agreement with Qualcomm is expected to be shut down in March 2011.

The available spectrum acquired by AT&T covers more than 300 million people total nationwide. 12 MHz of lower 700 MHz D and E block spectrum is accessible by more than 70 million people in five of the top 15 metropolitan areas, including New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The remaining 6 Mhz of lower 700 MHz D block spectrum covers more than 230 million people.

AT&T said it intends to deploy the spectrum as "supplemental downlink" once compatible handsets and network equipment are developed. AT&T and Qualcomm anticipate they will close on the sale in the second half of 2011.

While AT&T is still building its own 4G network, expected to launch in mid-2011, the company was recently beaten to the punch by its chief rival. Verizon's 4G long-term evolution network debuted earlier this month, offering 10 times faster download speeds in 38 metropolitan areas and more than 60 commercial airports across the U.S.

AT&T will partner with Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson to build out its LTE network, which will deliver higher broadband throughput and lower latency than the company's existing 3G network. But even before AT&T's 4G launches, the company has touted that its existing 3G network is 20 to 60 percent faster than its competitors.

In August, AppleInsider revealed that Qualcomm was looking to hire an "iPhone Developer Guru" for a "secret" project. The company is also rumored to be the supplier of CDMA chips for a rumored impending Verizon iPhone launch.
post #2 of 41
Verizon's way ahead of the game! If AT&T were smart they would have leveraged $1.5 billion in tax payer money to build out a 4G network like Verizon did. See guys, Verizon not only gets your monthly payments, but also your tax dollars... By far the best value! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ut-2010-12.DTL
post #3 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by jallenbentley View Post

Verizon's way ahead of the game! If AT&T were smart they would have leveraged $1.5 billion in tax payer money to build out a 4G network like Verizon did. See guys, Verizon not only gets your monthly payments, but also your tax dollars... By far the best value! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ut-2010-12.DTL

Welcome to the forum, Jallen.

Verizon is only "ahead of the game” if you define it as implementing the latest marketing buzzwords, but right now LTE isn’t optimal for cell phones.

I don’t think any carrier in the world is selling an LTE-capable cellphone at this point; I think they are all cellular modems, and even those are few and far between. That should tell you a lot about the tech.

The bottom line is that HSPA+ is more tried and true with smaller, more power-efficient chips with top theoretical speeds that aren’t even possible because the technology for it also hasn’t been invented yet to make it feasible, which is the underlying problem with LTE for least this next year.

Check out the cutting edge 4G phones on Sprint. WiMAX may barely beat out AT&T and T-Mobile’s 3G download speeds (not upload speeds) but it tears right through the the battery to do it. So far, I’ve seen no LTE chips that are small enough or efficient enough to be in a modern smartphone, much less the iPhone, which could easily get a 14.4Mbps/5.78Mbps ‘3G’ chip in the next revision. I’ll take that over some spotty and power hungry ‘4G’ buzzword any day.

Note, Verizon and Sprint had to jump to the new tech because EV-DO was so far behind HS*PA. GSM-based carriers have the luxury of a smoother, more efficient transition into LTE, which is just the next step for 3GPP.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #4 of 41
this seems like a good plan to me. the network already exists, right? All at&t needs to do is fold it into their network and sell some 700 MHz phones....
post #5 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


The available spectrum acquired by AT&T covers more than 300 million people total nationwide.

Considering that the US Census Bureau estimated the US population at 307 million last year, that's good coverage (or an inaccurate number).
post #6 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

Considering that the US Census Bureau estimated the US population at 307 million last year, that's good coverage (or an inaccurate number).

Its not saying that AT&T has 300M subscribers, but that the spectrum covers that number of people, as you pointed out is correct per last years census.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #7 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by jallenbentley View Post

Verizon's way ahead of the game! If AT&T were smart they would have leveraged $1.5 billion in tax payer money to build out a 4G network like Verizon did. See guys, Verizon not only gets your monthly payments, but also your tax dollars... By far the best value! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ut-2010-12.DTL

Don't be fooled by the marketing "G"s. AT&T's 3G network is currently faster than Verizon's, T-Mobile's, and Sprint's "4G" networks.

Also, no one has a true 4G Network (As defined by the ITU as 100mbs).
post #8 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

Also, no one has a true 4G Network (As defined by the ITU as 100mbs).

To be fair, ITU doesnt have any exclusivity on the term 4G. Its no more true than Verizon referring to its 4th generation of cellular evolution as 4G. Both need to be qualified to have any real meaning. For instance, the current iPhone is 4G, and thats the truth as its the 4th generation iPhone yet doesnt mean its cellular radio can do 100Mbps+.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Its not saying that AT&T has 300M subscribers, but that the spectrum covers that number of people, as you pointed out is correct per last years census.

It sounds to me that they just added the 230M and the 70M to get 300M, but that would assume that there's no overlap in coverage between the two, right? I'm no expert here, it just sounded unlikely.
post #10 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

It sounds to me that they just added the 230M and the 70M to get 300M, but that would assume that there's no overlap in coverage between the two, right? I'm no expert here, it just sounded unlikely.

The subject is the spectrum. We can shorten the sentence to say "The available spectrum [] covers more than 300 million people total nationwide. without changing its meaning.

The spectrum itself covers areas now populated by 300M inhabitants of the US. Note that a radio spectrum isnt necessarily universal to a nations natural and artificial boundaries.

Yes, there is overlap. AT&T will have UMTS coverage from the 850MHz and 1900MHz bands, not to mention their GSM bands.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #11 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post

this seems like a good plan to me. the network already exists, right? All at&t needs to do is fold it into their network and sell some 700 MHz phones....

Long wave lengths require less power output. AT&T is smart to buy up this available bandwidth.
post #12 of 41
People always slam these guys but they really seem to be making an effort. $1.9B is not small potatoes.
post #13 of 41
While its good to see that ATT has purchased additional spectrum, Do Not be fooled into thinking that this will be implemented a few months from now. This could take a years.
And as we all know ATT hasn't gotten 3G right yet. So ATT and most of the other carriers embarking on to 4G is just a number.
Lets all keep in mind that towers and phones have to be equipped with 4G capable chips, bandwith etc to be workable. After ATT releases its 4G network in 2011 must people will see that the difference is negligable.
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4 View Post

While its good to see that ATT has purchased additional spectrum, Do Not be fooled into thinking that this will be implemented a few months from now. This could take a years.
And as we all know ATT hasn't gotten 3G right yet.

I usually defend AT&T as being adequate and since they are the only provider for iPhone I can usually put up with the few inconveniences, however, yesterday I was stuck in line at LAX immigration and customs for more than an hour. AT&T has absolutely zero service in that building while the Verizon users were happily chatting away, making ground travel arrangements and checking email, I couldn't even get my iPhone to update the timezone.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 41
better late than never.
post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Welcome to the forum, Jallen.

Verizon is only "ahead of the game if you define it as implementing the latest marketing buzzwords, but right now LTE isnt optimal for cell phones.

I dont think any carrier in the world is selling an LTE-capable cellphone at this point; I think they are all cellular modems, and even those are few and far between. That should tell you a lot about the tech.

The bottom line is that HSPA+ is more tried and true with smaller, more power-efficient chips with top theoretical speeds that arent even possible because the technology for it also hasnt been invented yet to make it feasible, which is the underlying problem with LTE for least this next year.

Check out the cutting edge 4G phones on Sprint. WiMAX may barely beat out AT&T and T-Mobiles 3G download speeds (not upload speeds) but it tears right through the the battery to do it. So far, Ive seen no LTE chips that are small enough or efficient enough to be in a modern smartphone, much less the iPhone, which could easily get a 14.4Mbps/5.78Mbps 3G chip in the next revision. Ill take that over some spotty and power hungry 4G buzzword any day.

Note, Verizon and Sprint had to jump to the new tech because EV-DO was so far behind HS*PA. GSM-based carriers have the luxury of a smoother, more efficient transition into LTE, which is just the next step for 3GPP.

Thank you for knowing of what you speak and thoughtfully discussing the issue.
32G iPhone 4, 32G iPad 2, late 2009 15" mbp
Reply
32G iPhone 4, 32G iPad 2, late 2009 15" mbp
Reply
post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4 View Post

While its good to see that ATT has purchased additional spectrum, Do Not be fooled into thinking that this will be implemented a few months from now. This could take a years.
And as we all know ATT hasn't gotten 3G right yet. So ATT and most of the other carriers embarking on to 4G is just a number.
Lets all keep in mind that towers and phones have to be equipped with 4G capable chips, bandwith etc to be workable. After ATT releases its 4G network in 2011 must people will see that the difference is negligable.

Can you elaborate how AT&T hasn't gotten 3G right? The only issues I've had the past three years have all been edge related. My 3G experience has been great nationwide.
32G iPhone 4, 32G iPad 2, late 2009 15" mbp
Reply
32G iPhone 4, 32G iPad 2, late 2009 15" mbp
Reply
post #18 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

People always slam these guys but they really seem to be making an effort. $1.9B is not small potatoes.

Verizon spent about 10 Billion to win the FCC wireless spectrum auction a few years ago.
If you look at what these companies actually spend on infrastructure, the difference is even more staggering. Verizon spends approximately 20% more per subscriber. AT&T is also spending a disproportionate amount of its money maintaining it's wired network. Verizon is spending more and spending smarter.
post #19 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post

Can you elaborate how AT&T hasn't gotten 3G right? The only issues I've had the past three years have all been edge related. My 3G experience has been great nationwide.

Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.
post #20 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post

Thank you for knowing of what you speak and thoughtfully discussing the issue.

Normally this would be a very sarcastic remark.
post #21 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Verizon spent about 10 Billion to win the FCC wireless spectrum auction a few years ago.
If you look at what these companies actually spend on infrastructure, the difference is even more staggering. Verizon spends approximately 20% more per subscriber. AT&T is also spending a disproportionate amount of its money maintaining it's wired network. Verizon is spending more and spending smarter.

To be fair, AT&T also spent 6.6 billion in that auction and now another 1.9 billion. So to add up the expenditures for wireless spectrum:

Verizon: $9.4 billion
AT&T: $8.5 billion

The figures have nothing to do with any wired network infrastructure upgrades although the back haul wired part of the mobile network is a very important factor. 'Spending smarter' remark is subjective.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #22 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.

I visited for a week this last sumer. No issues. Zero. My 3G experience was fine in hotel or traveling the area, including a boat on the bay. My daughter has lived in SF proper for the last year or so, she calls home daily from her cell phone, never a dropped call. Quit with the hyperbole.
post #23 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.

I travel to Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose, Las Vegas way more times than I can count in one year.... and have been doing it for over 10 years. Since I got my iPhone 3G way back when it released (and upgraded to iPhone4 recently) I don't ever recall dropping call in the Bay Area, maybe once, but I don't recall. I remember being in my hotel room at the Nikko Hotel up high and had problems accessing a 3G signal for internet use. But that's all I ever recall.

I don't live in the Bay Area, but with my positive experience with iPhones and AT&T, is this "dropped call" thing overblown by a small handful of people who've had problems because of bad areas and are louder than the satisfied customers?
post #24 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

To be fair, ITU doesnt have any exclusivity on the term 4G. Its no more true than Verizon referring to its 4th generation of cellular evolution as 4G. Both need to be qualified to have any real meaning. For instance, the current iPhone is 4G, and thats the truth as its the 4th generation iPhone yet doesnt mean its cellular radio can do 100Mbps+.

First ITU was appointed by the United Nations to classify what qualifies as 4G and what does not, and they have said, and determined that 100 Mbps or more qualified as 4G, Second AT&T nor Apple have said that the iPhone 4 is a 4G phone. So please check up on thinks before you run your mouth.
EAC
Chief Engineer.
post #25 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.

I live in Miami FL, and I work in New York On a Boat The only place I have problems in NY is at Bayridge Anchorage but that's because the boat swings around on the anchor. But all over NY City and Staten Island no problems.
post #26 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by eacumm View Post

First ITU was appointed by the United Nations to classify what qualifies as 4G and what does not, and they have said, and determined that 100 Mbps or more qualified as 4G, Second AT&T nor Apple have said that the iPhone 4 is a 4G phone. So please check up on thinks before you run your mouth.
EAC
Chief Engineer.

Way to completely miss the point.

Again, it doesn’t matter who appoints whom to what using a number followed by the letter ‘G’ to refer to generation is a common and not owned by the ITU so anyone is allowed to use such terms. As previously noted the iPhone is in its 4th generation LTE will be Verizon’s 4th generation of major cellular network change, so unless they are qualifying their ‘4G’ as being ‘4G’ as defined by the ITU then they have all the right in the world to use the number ‘4” and the letter ‘G’ back to back and in that order.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #27 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Visit the San Fran or the NYC metro area and ask the at&t customers there.
You literally have to go there because their phones don't work.

Cement and steel are hard on 3G and that in part can create a major reception problem as in New York City.

As for San Francisco, getting a tower up there at all is a major issue.
Having been to both cities, spent a few years with the Signal Corps, and taken a boat down the Inland waterway as far as the Keys where there were spots which denied my Bell card from a phone booth let alone no cellular service of any kind, you tend to be appreciate what you have and have a better understanding that not everything is available or works perfectly on demand.
post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I usually defend AT&T as being adequate and since they are the only provider for iPhone I can usually put up with the few inconveniences, however, yesterday I was stuck in line at LAX immigration and customs for more than an hour. AT&T has absolutely zero service in that building while the Verizon users were happily chatting away, making ground travel arrangements and checking email, I couldn't even get my iPhone to update the timezone.

Was this in the immigration and customs room where the signs state "No cell phone usage?"
:-)
'
post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Way to completely miss the point.

Again, it doesnt matter who appoints whom to what using a number followed by the letter G to refer to generation is a common and not owned by the ITU so anyone is allowed to use such terms. As previously noted the iPhone is in its 4th generation LTE will be Verizons 4th generation of major cellular network change, so unless they are qualifying their 4G as being 4G as defined by the ITU then they have all the right in the world to use the number 4 and the letter G back to back and in that order.

He's an engineer. Details, details
post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

Was this in the immigration and customs room where the signs state "No cell phone usage?"
:-)
'

Probably. I didn't see any signs though. Would they have been printed in 20 languages? I guess it would make sense to prevent people from taking photos of proprietary security procedures but they should also ban cameras as well if that were the reason. Personally it makes no sense to deny people's access to information such as connecting flight status, confirmation numbers stored in email, communicating with family to inform them of terminal, or flight number changes as was my case. Anyway it is not AT&T's job to enforce immigration policies.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #31 of 41
LTE doesn't handle voice and data in an all-IP all packet-switched network. 4G will, after its spec is chosen, and after it is rolled out. And none of that will even begin to happen until 2012 at the earliest.

So far, it looks like "LTE Advanced" will be chosen as the 4G spec. But things can change.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Verizon spent about 10 Billion to win the FCC wireless spectrum auction a few years ago.
If you look at what these companies actually spend on infrastructure, the difference is even more staggering. Verizon spends approximately 20% more per subscriber. AT&T is also spending a disproportionate amount of its money maintaining it's wired network. Verizon is spending more and spending smarter.

AT&T has purchased more 700 mhz spectrum than anyone else and spent more money on it. They purchased the B block holdings from Aloha, purchased more in the FCC auction (actually more than Verizon purchased in the same auction), and they are now adding the Qualcom spectrum. Their purchases are much smarter than Verizon's because verizon has the nationwide C block whick is uniform bandwidth across the country where AT&T has considerably more 700 mhz bandwidth in all of the top population centers (as much as 3x Verizon's), including wider bands since their Aloha and auction purchases are in a contiguous space. They have less bw in some of the rural areas but usage is obviously not uniform between rural North Dakota and downtown Chicago so that makes much more sense.

Obviously they still have to build out a network to use the spectrum, but if you know much about the industry, AT&T's 700 mhz holdings plus their 850 and 1900 give them a pretty good competitive advantage as far as potential coverage, the ability to deliver BW to denser population centers, and the ability to offer building penetrating BW in the next gen. Verizon has the 850, but far less 700 mhz spectrum, and Sprint an T-Mobile have neither and will always struggle to serve rural areas cost effectively.

AT&T has some issues, but spectrum investment is definitely not one of them.
post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

To be fair, AT&T also spent 6.6 billion in that auction and now another 1.9 billion. So to add up the expenditures for wireless spectrum:

Verizon: $9.4 billion
AT&T: $8.5 billion

The figures have nothing to do with any wired network infrastructure upgrades although the back haul wired part of the mobile network is a very important factor. 'Spending smarter' remark is subjective.

AT&T also spent $2.5+ billion on the Aloha spectrum. And these are just for 700 mhz.
post #34 of 41
LOL. AT&T's 3G is probably faster than everyone else's but out of the major five but the others all have and are focusing on 4g ...including Metro PCS! This means that AT&T is in 5th and soon to be 6th if U.S. Cellular could get their 4G system out.
post #35 of 41
Verizon is saying by the end of 2013 they'll have LTE built out to where their 3G is today. That's 3 years at the latest. AT&T has had 3-1/2 years with the iPhone exclusively, during which time they have raked in billions of extra dollars from smartphone customers, during which time they have been unable to even get their 3G to the level of Verizon's. My confidence is extremely low that they'll be able to match Verizon's performance, just as they have not been able to since 2007. From a technical standpoint, they might be "ahead of the game." As far as actually executing, they are way behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Welcome to the forum, Jallen.

Verizon is only "ahead of the game if you define it as implementing the latest marketing buzzwords, but right now LTE isnt optimal for cell phones.

I dont think any carrier in the world is selling an LTE-capable cellphone at this point; I think they are all cellular modems, and even those are few and far between. That should tell you a lot about the tech.

The bottom line is that HSPA+ is more tried and true with smaller, more power-efficient chips with top theoretical speeds that arent even possible because the technology for it also hasnt been invented yet to make it feasible, which is the underlying problem with LTE for least this next year.

Check out the cutting edge 4G phones on Sprint. WiMAX may barely beat out AT&T and T-Mobiles 3G download speeds (not upload speeds) but it tears right through the the battery to do it. So far, Ive seen no LTE chips that are small enough or efficient enough to be in a modern smartphone, much less the iPhone, which could easily get a 14.4Mbps/5.78Mbps 3G chip in the next revision. Ill take that over some spotty and power hungry 4G buzzword any day.

Note, Verizon and Sprint had to jump to the new tech because EV-DO was so far behind HS*PA. GSM-based carriers have the luxury of a smoother, more efficient transition into LTE, which is just the next step for 3GPP.
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

Verizon is saying by the end of 2013 they'll have LTE built out to where their 3G is today. That's 3 years at the latest. AT&T has had 3-1/2 years with the iPhone exclusively, during which time they have raked in billions of extra dollars from smartphone customers, during which time they have been unable to even get their 3G to the level of Verizon's. My confidence is extremely low that they'll be able to match Verizon's performance, just as they have not been able to since 2007. From a technical standpoint, they might be "ahead of the game." As far as actually executing, they are way behind.

You make it sound like AT&T hasnt updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.

Do they have as much 3G coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizons larger 3G coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.

My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizons speeds for 3G have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.

If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizons 3G coverage matches their current 3G coverage, then great, but in the meantime Ill be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasnt even a 3G iPhone on the market.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #37 of 41
As far as what AT&T has done with 3-1/2 years of iPhone exclusivity, I have 2 things to go on. Their coverage maps and my experience. They both show me AT&T has not done enough. Can you explain to me how Verizon can build out LTE in the next 3 years, but AT&T has not managed to build out last gen's technology in the last 3-1/2?

This is NOT a case of "adding some towers to farmland." Cities (like where I live) supposedly have great AT&T coverage, but have dead zones throughout. You and I both know that is the case (and has been WIDELY reported by many more than just me), so quit trying to pretend otherwise.

Bottom line: If AT&T had been capable of executing, we would not be seeing a CDMA iPhone in a few months. Apple would have waited for LTE before jumping ship to Verizon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You make it sound like AT&T hasnt updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.

Do they have as much 3G coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizons larger 3G coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.

My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizons speeds for 3G have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.

If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizons 3G coverage matches their current 3G coverage, then great, but in the meantime Ill be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasnt even a 3G iPhone on the market.
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

As far as what AT&T has done with 3-1/2 years of iPhone exclusivity, I have 2 things to go on. Their coverage maps and my experience. They both show me AT&T has not done enough. Can you explain to me how Verizon can build out LTE in the next 3 years, but AT&T has not managed to build out last gen's technology in the last 3-1/2?

Youre missing the point. Verizon and Sprint had no choice but to upgrade. EV-DO is a dead end. They cant compete with AT&T and T-Mobile so they had to jump the gun to the next tech while others can utilize the very fast and efficient tech that is HS*PA. Youre getting caught up in some pointless numerical value. AT&T and T-Mobiles 3G will be better tech than LTE for a long time. By the time LTE has a viable handset hardware I bet they will have a network built up to support it, while at the same time having one of these releases in our handsets not pointlessly eating through our batteries.

Note that were still on Category 7 for HSDPA and Category 6 for HSUPA in the iPhone 4:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsdpa#H....29_categories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsupa#Versions
Quote:
This is NOT a case of "adding some towers to farmland." Cities (like where I live) supposedly have great AT&T coverage, but have dead zones throughout. You and I both know that is the case (and has been WIDELY reported by many more than just me), so quit trying to pretend otherwise.

Now youre talking about spectrum and tower placement. This is the cake walk that you think it is.

Quote:
Bottom line: If AT&T had been capable of executing, we would not be seeing a CDMA iPhone in a few months. Apple would have waited for LTE before jumping ship to Verizon.

This is irrelevant. Growth is growth and a CDMA-based iPhone was always going to come at some point.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You’re missing the point. Verizon and Sprint had no choice but to upgrade. EV-DO is a dead end. They can’t compete with AT&T and T-Mobile so they had to jump the gun to the next tech while others can utilize the very fast and efficient tech that is HS*PA. You’re getting caught up in some pointless numerical value. AT&T and T-Mobile’s ‘3G’ will be better tech than LTE for a long time. By the time LTE has a viable handset hardware I bet they will have a network built up to support it, while at the same time having one of these releases in our handsets not pointlessly eating through our batteries.

Then why is AT&T launching their own LTE network in 2011? While Verizon builds out their LTE network, they have a strong CDMA network to fall back on. The same cannot be said of AT&T.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Now you’re talking about spectrum and tower placement. This is the cake walk that you think it is.

I don't give a fig if it is easy or not. The iPhone and other smartphones are worth billions of dollars a year. If they can't make it work then I will go to a company that can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This is irrelevant. Growth is growth and a CDMA-based iPhone was always going to come at some point.

Are you saying in 2007 or 2008 you thought Apple was going to eventually get to a CDMA iPhone? That would make you a minority of 1 on this forum. There have been countless posts about how CDMA is a dead technology, Apple is in the business of killing off old tech like the floppy and serial port, etc. If you really thought that, then fine. But I think you're wrong. I doubt Apple planned on CDMA once they released the GMS iPhone, and what changed that plan was AT&T's performance.
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You make it sound like AT&T hasnt updated their network at all since before 2007 when in fact they have spent billions per year adding to the infrastructure.

Do they have as much 3G coverage as Verizon? But if you have money to put toward increasing the ability of users in Dallas/Fort Worth to maintain access in a rapidly growing data-heavy users or adding some towers to farmland in the middle of Idaho just to compete with Verizons larger 3G coverage area despite the disparate network technologies then I say AT&T chose well.

My speeds on AT&T have done nothing but increase since the iPhone 3G arrived, while Verizons speeds for 3G have long ago reached a bottle neck and still offer no solution for simulations voice and data.

If you say it will be more no more than 3 years before Verizons 3G coverage matches their current 3G coverage, then great, but in the meantime Ill be using a fast network with power efficient chips. If in three years, this is the case, then perhaps LTE chips will have evolved enough to become viable, but note that AT&T and Verizon will both be on LTE and using 700MHz which makes waiting 3 years for Verizon to beat AT&T a pointless objective. Note that 3 years ago there wasnt even a 3G iPhone on the market.

I use both a Verizon and AT&T phone (3G) on a daily basis in Seattle and I can say that the quality of service on the latter is poor relative to the former. I experience inconsistent voice quality and a number of dropped calls per week. Although the bandwidth on the AT&T network is higher it is not as constant as what Verizon offers.

A caveat to the above is my observation that Verizon's 3G speeds on EVDO have slightly decreased in my area of use while AT&T's have remained at the same performance levels over the past 1 year. (I measure the speeds using the speedtest app during working hours and not at night.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T bolsters 4G network plans with $1.9B spectrum purchase