or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T will bring 4G LTE to 70M customers in 15 markets by end of 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T will bring 4G LTE to 70M customers in 15 markets by end of 2011

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Though reports have suggested Apple's next iPhone will not support the 4G long-term evolution standard, AT&T will roll out its new high-speed network to more than 70 million customers by the end of 2011.

Details for AT&T's 2011 LTE plans were detailed by the company's chief technology officer, John Donovan, in a post on his company's site. AT&T's 4G network will debut this summer in five markets: Dallas, Tex., Houston, Tex., Chicago, Ill., Atlanta, Ga., and San Antonio, Tex.

"We plan to add another 10 or more markets in the second half of the year, and cover 70 million Americans with LTE by year-end," Donovan wrote. "We also have plans to add 20 4G devices to our robust device portfolio this year, with some of those being LTE capable."

He revealed that AT&T has invested $75 billion in its wireless and wired networks in the last four years, more capital invested than any other company in any industry. AT&T also plans to invest $19 billion in wireless and wireline networks, along with other capital projects, this year.

"The investments we've made to evolve our mobile broadband network in recent years, plus what we have planned for the future, put our customers in position to benefit fully from a host of coming mobile broadband innovations," he wrote.

The launch of AT&T's LTE network will come well after rival Verizon, which debuted its fourth-generation high-speed network last December in 38 metropolitan areas and more than 60 commercial airports across the U.S.



AT&T has been hyping its forthcoming LTE network, and last week showed off download speeds of 28.8Mbps, along with 10.4Mbps uploads. The download rate is more than seven times faster than the 3.77Mbps rate that can be reached on AT&T's current HSPA network, while uploads were more than eight times the current 1.21Mbps rate.

Verizon says its LTE network has real-world data rates of between 5Mbps and 12MBps downstream and 2Mbps to 5Mbps upstream. Verizon's LTE network will be nationwide by the end of 2013, while AT&T has said its own LTE deployment will be "largely complete" by the same time.

Recent rumors have pegged an LTE-capable iPhone to come from Apple in 2012, and not this year. Verizon's chief executive said earlier this year that Apple understands the "value proposition of LTE," and that they will be "a part of" the technology's future.

At the official Verizon CDMA iPhone 4 unveiling in January, executives revealed that Apple chose not to include LTE technology because it would require design changes. Officials from Verizon indicated they wanted the iPhone as soon as possible, so Apple obliged with a modified version of the GSM-based iPhone 4 released in 2010.
post #2 of 32
yay! alaska got a tower!
post #3 of 32
I'm sure for one reason or another a bunch of AT&T hating is bound to being...
post #4 of 32
Quote:
He revealed that AT&T has invested $75 billion in its wireless and wired networks in the last four years, more capital invested than any other company in any industry.

I call BS. If you put down 75 Billion into your own infrastructure and STILL have a 5% dropped call rate, the highest in the nation, while simultaneously having the nations 2nd largest network, you are a failure of a provider, and are sincerely lucky to be here today.
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhosrof View Post

I'm sure for one reason or another a bunch of AT&T hating is bound to being...

AT&T can honestly brag about all it wants when it comes to deployment and speed, I have no problem with that. But with a number like 75 Billion, and the statistics it has under it's name, I find it too difficult to believe that as a company that they Honestly invested that much to get these results.
post #6 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

... But with a number like 75 Billion, and the statistics it has under it's name, I find it too difficult to believe that as a company that they Honestly invested that much to get these results.

Are you saying that you don't believe AT&T got their monies worth based on the results of their claimed investment?
post #7 of 32
I dunno, IMO 4G/LTE... m'eh. Would much much prefer better 3G/HSPA+ coverage.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #8 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorPaul View Post

Are you saying that you don't believe AT&T got their monies worth based on the results of their claimed investment?

The network state right now, doesn't justify such a large price tag. Surely 75 Billion would have yielded better results than what is know to exist now.
post #9 of 32
Given all the costs and effort that AT&T is putting into improving the dismal coverage in DC and San Francisco you would think that they would just funnel those costs into upgrading those cities to LTE early on.
post #10 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

I call BS. If you put down 75 Billion into your own infrastructure and STILL have a 5% dropped call rate, the highest in the nation, while simultaneously having the nations 2nd largest network, you are a failure of a provider, and are sincerely lucky to be here today.

I call BS also!! I'm in Wisconsin and we still do not have 3G (still on edge), Verizon has had it here for 4 years now! what up with that AT&crap ?

time to switch when the next Iphone comes out!!
post #11 of 32
Given the amount of network and business expertise that exists just on this forum, I cannot understand how there aren't thousands of companies putting AT&T out of business. Further, given how incompetent T is, it doesn't scan that Verizon hasn't squashed them, T-Mobile is fleeing the US, and Nextel's is known mainly for NASCAR.
post #12 of 32
The bigger question is: what version of Crap(G) is this? Will these phones work on real 4G networks in Europe or the rest of the world or this an AT&T only party?
post #13 of 32
You know, there was like one or two days last year when AT&T unveiled some fast network and I was pulling 5 Mbps -- until it disappeared as they had to patch software in their towers or something. I haven't seen it since.

Is that what this is?

ETA: This is in New York City.
post #14 of 32
The Bees! Won't Somebody Think About The BEES!!
post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

The bigger question is: what version of Crap(G) is this? Will these phones work on real 4G networks in Europe or the rest of the world or this an AT&T only party?

By the "new" definition of the world's broadband welfare state(AKA the united states) for 4(non-existantG), As long as your new Tech has partial IP architecture, faster speeds, and different frequencies than 3G bands...your good to go.

And as for overseas, I'm pretty sure you'll be locked down to 3G bands. Of course this isn't assuming that AT&T's purchase of T-mobile sets it on very nice terms with Deutsche Telekom. Or unless the area you venture into hasn't got LTE rolled out yet of course.
post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by eh270 View Post

You know, there was like one or two days last year when AT&T unveiled some fast network and I was pulling 5 Mbps -- until it disappeared as they had to patch software in their towers or something. I haven't seen it since.

Is that what this is?

ETA: This is in New York City.

Nah, this is 4G LTE.

If this happened last year, it was still 3G HSPA. Basically, for a couple of days, the AT&T 3G network functioned like it should have.

HSPA supports 14Mbps downloads, and 5.8Mbps uploads (maximum numbers).

The prevalent 3G technology worldwide now is HSPA+ which supports 84Mbps down, 22Mbps up (maximum). Note that both Verizon and AT&T's patchwork LTE networks are currently slower than what much of the world is already using. Many international markets are already on their second or third iteration of HSPA+ (each upgrade brings faster service).
post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

I call BS. If you put down 75 Billion into your own infrastructure and STILL have a 5% dropped call rate, the highest in the nation, while simultaneously having the nations 2nd largest network, you are a failure of a provider, and are sincerely lucky to be here today.

74 billion went to lawyer fees, building permits, land purchase, bribes, lobbying, advertising, etc. The other billion bought a couple towers in Texas.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #18 of 32
Give me faster HSPA+/HSUPA.
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 #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

74 billion went to lawyer fees, building permits, land purchase, bribes, lobbying, advertising, etc. The other billion bought a couple towers in Texas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/b...pagewanted=all

http://www.publicknowledge.org/feder...ake-commission
post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidwisconsin View Post

I call BS also!! I'm in Wisconsin and we still do not have 3G (still on edge), Verizon has had it here for 4 years now! what up with that AT&crap ?

time to switch when the next Iphone comes out!!

Not to single you out, but do you grasp that it's not just a technology issue, but also a legal issue with local municipalities?

The tower wars for right-of-way are the main cost for these deployments.

Rightly, no company should just be able to throw up a tower wherever it wants, but municipalities playing money games with competition doesn't serve the public one way or another.

San Francisco is infamous for their costs for tower deployments on aesthetic issues with the greater SF area, RF radiation issues and more. They take it seriously and in a 49 square mile city with well over 1 million citizens concerns about RF saturation are serious.

They aren't the only area that uses the same concerns before allowing deployments.

AT&T and Verizon should naturally deploy the most efficient, safe and quality tower product available in the industry. Only regulators know those answers. That is where they compete for quality and performance of service.

Part of the cost they are discussing includes all the testing and research costs attributed to that $75 Billion claim, but also the cost of Spectrum from the FCC and the cost of mergers.

I wish executive would be more detailed on where they come up with these investment numbers, but I also wish consumers would educate themselves on all there is invested in order for the entire business to run.

Verizon also expresses how much they've invested in their ``network'' and are inflating it with that roughly $30 Billion to buy Alltel.

The same goes with AT&T including their soon-to-be cost of T-Mobile.
post #21 of 32
LTE will make AT&T's 2GB data usage cap seem that much smaller. Hopefully they increase the cap when LTE comes around.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #22 of 32
San Francisco only has about 780,000 residents, though there are certainly over 1 million people within city limits during the normal day.

Topography is also a big hurdle to overcome there, with all the hills and plenty of large masonry and concrete buildings to absorb signal. But yes, misguided NIMBYism is the biggest obstacle to having better ATTWS coverage in this town.
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

The network state right now, doesn't justify such a large price tag. Surely 75 Billion would have yielded better results than what is know to exist now.

Sure have a LOT of 3G network engineers on this thread who know how much it costs to build a network. I wonder why so many of ATT's and Verizon's executives post on this forum?
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

By the "new" definition of the world's broadband welfare state(AKA the united states) for 4(non-existantG), As long as your new Tech has partial IP architecture, faster speeds, and different frequencies than 3G bands...your good to go.

And as for overseas, I'm pretty sure you'll be locked down to 3G bands. Of course this isn't assuming that AT&T's purchase of T-mobile sets it on very nice terms with Deutsche Telekom. Or unless the area you venture into hasn't got LTE rolled out yet of course.

Well, for the most part it won't matter to me as I live and work in Europe which will be getting the "real" initial, non-bastardized, US version of 4G. My main question is will Apple plan and provide for real 4G or equip their phones with Crap(G)?
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

The bigger question is: what version of Crap(G) is this? Will these phones work on real 4G networks in Europe or the rest of the world or this an AT&T only party?

Who cares? The bloody phone is still locked to AT&T. Edit: OK I understand what you're saying... though I can't imagine Apple making a different version of iPhone 5 LTE for Europe. Hopefully the baseband chip will take care of all if this... Hence a 2012 4G iPhone at the earliest.
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

74 billion went to lawyer fees, building permits, land purchase, bribes, lobbying, advertising, etc. The other billion bought a couple towers in Texas.

That sounds about right...
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Who cares? The bloody phone is still locked to AT&T. Edit: OK I understand what you're saying... though I can't imagine Apple making a different version of iPhone 5 LTE for Europe. Hopefully the baseband chip will take care of all if this... Hence a 2012 4G iPhone at the earliest.

Mine won't be like all of the iPhones I've legally purchased. Just because your operator sucks doesn't mean the rest do. Sorry you live in locked up cellular bubble, some of us don't.
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

I call BS. If you put down 75 Billion into your own infrastructure and STILL have a 5% dropped call rate, the highest in the nation, while simultaneously having the nations 2nd largest network, you are a failure of a provider, and are sincerely lucky to be here today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

The network state right now, doesn't justify such a large price tag. Surely 75 Billion would have yielded better results than what is know to exist now.

Based on what?

It's really amazing how a bunch of anonymous posters on AI will accuse a Fortune 100 company of outright lying - which happens to be a felony if a public company knowingly lies on a material matter.

So who should we believe? AT&T (where the execs can go to jail for lying) or some moron on AI who obviously isn't in any position to know how much AT&T really spent?

What's with you people?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Based on what?

It's really amazing how a bunch of anonymous posters on AI will accuse a Fortune 100 company of outright lying - which happens to be a felony if a public company knowingly lies on a material matter.

So who should we believe? AT&T (where the execs can go to jail for lying) or some moron on AI who obviously isn't in any position to know how much AT&T really spent?

What's with you people?

Wait, that's right, Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al didn't lie. No way....

Sorry dude but your post is the dumbest yet. You might want to rethink your argument.
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Based on what?

It's really amazing how a bunch of anonymous posters on AI will accuse a Fortune 100 company of outright lying - which happens to be a felony if a public company knowingly lies on a material matter.

So who should we believe? AT&T (where the execs can go to jail for lying) or some moron on AI who obviously isn't in any position to know how much AT&T really spent?

What's with you people?

Of course, how could I be so ignorant?

What logical reason should I have to not believe a company who:

Had to be broken up for a monopoly on landlines
Is known for being extravagantly Anti consumer
Is rated the worst carrier in the industry for multiple years in a row
Is known to surcharge it's customers much more frequently than other carriers
And is known for downright breach of contract.

Yea, real honest company you got there
post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Sure have a LOT of 3G network engineers on this thread who know how much it costs to build a network. I wonder why so many of ATT's and Verizon's executives post on this forum?

The average cost of putting up a cellphone tower itself is $150,000. Zoning licenses and permits will NOT jump the cost up to some ridiculous number which cannot be made back.



AT&T has anywhere in between 40-200mhz MORE than verizon in 20 of the 21 top markets in the US.

There is NO excuse why we haven't seen improvement.
post #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Mine won't be like all of the iPhones I've legally purchased. Just because your operator sucks doesn't mean the rest do. Sorry you live in locked up cellular bubble, some of us don't.


I'm not in the US mate. Thank goodness I get legally officially unlocked phones where I am as well. The point remains, the first LTE iPhone will be designed to work on ATT, with possibly a separate model for Verizon. Compatibility of these two types of LTE iPhones with other LTE markets will vary.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T will bring 4G LTE to 70M customers in 15 markets by end of 2011