Dropped calla isn't proof that AT&T hasn't upgraded it's network. With the number of iPhones in New York if AT&T had not upgraded it's network you likely would not be getting any calls at all.
Upgrade? "Dropped calls isn't proof" - then what is it? Do you know how often I can't even browse Safari on 3G here? If that an upgrade - how poor was it before? As my long time iPhone friend told me- "Verizon owns NY- get use to it."
I extremely doubt that it has been upgraded here.
Having said that, I wouldn't trade my iPhone experience for anything else.
Does this analyst work for a cell phone company? I don't see how his list of effects of the iPhone translates to wrecking the cellular industry. Why shouldn't customers focus on the level of service and the features provided? He acts as if cellular companies have never held back features for reasons other than cost or technical limitations. Maybe he would like to explain to me why Bell (in Canada) disabled the GPS in my phone (and removed the pre-installed map) only to introduce the "feature" two years later in thier new phones. My guess is that they hadn't figured out how to profit from the "feature" yet. Luckily I unlocked my phone, re-enabled the gps and downloaded a map program (as well changed a setting to allow it to play mp3 ringtones that I created myself, instead of Bells $3 ringtones). The North American cellular industry is disgusting. If Apple can throw its weight around and shake things up a bit, it will be for the better (although AT&T exclusivity should go).
And your point? Is it cool for AT&T to act like a slum lord then? Glut the network, let it crap out, and overcharge at the same time?
If the network is being overtaxed because there are too many people on it, then obviously AT&T should be charging more to reach a balance. When you say that AT&T is overcharging, in the same sentence that you say there is a glut of users, all you do is show that you have no clue what you are talking about.
If the network is being overtaxed because there are too many people on it, then obviously AT&T should be charging more to reach a balance. When you say that AT&T is overcharging, in the same sentence that you say there is a glut of users, all you do is show that you have no clue what you are talking about.
What you talking about ? AT&T should charge more for crap?
And I have no clue- HA!
Every other day AT&T is pushing more and more crappy little 3G phones for sale on TV and in full page print adds, overtaxing their network even more. AT&T is very slick indeed.
By land mass Austrailia is smaller than the US. Other than that there are many differences that you don't consider.
AT&T's and Verizon's subscriber base is eight times Austrailia's entire population. The US is divided between GSM and CDMA. US carriers have many more people to serve and US infrastructure is divided between two different network technologies.
All Austrailian carriers use GSM. From what I understand the Austrailian government invests money into the wireless infrastructure. The US government does not directly invest money into wireless infrastructure.
The point is that these differences between Austrailia and the US make it much easier and cheaper to build an advanced network in Austrialia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
Actually no that's not the answer...
I am in Australia with a landmass equivalent to the USA and with only 20 million people versus 280 million, what's that nearly a 15th the population.. spread over the same area.
I live in the middle of the country in a town of 27,000 people. The nearest population centres of significant numbers are 1500km + away. We have 21Mbit 3G here.
Often my iPhone 3GS clocks faster than my ADSL. MMS worked straight away and tethering also. I am up to 30km's out of town in a desert able to play / upload video. When I am on some of the larger communities nearby (1-200k) with 2-300 people EVEN they have a fully operational 3G network running at 7.2Mbit minimum.
Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone / 3 all offer the iPhone and Apple sells it unlocked on its AU website.
So what exactly is the problem in the USA with your carriers. Even CDMA/EVDO got shut down over a year ago, nationally, it was outdated.
The reason you cannot browse 3G is because the iPhone is a huge success. You refuse to acknowledge that AT&T is upgrading, they are unable to keep their network ahead of the demand. All of the AT&T phones I see walking around NY doesn't show me it's owned by Verizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Upgrade? "Dropped calls isn't proof" - then what is it? Do you know how often I can't even browse Safari on 3G here? If that an upgrade - how poor was it before? As my long time iPhone friend told me- "Verizon owns NY- get use to it."
I extremely doubt that it has been upgraded here.
Having said that, I wouldn't trade my iPhone experience for anything else.
Maybe once or thrice in 8 years that I used them. That's a pretty great rate I'd say-must be one of the reasons if not the main one that they are so popular with business here.
The reason you cannot browse 3G is because the iPhone is a huge success.
IPhone has been a huge success for over 2 years. Apple doesn't run or maintain the 3G network, AT&T does if memory serves.They are responsible not the iPhone.
My point is that the success of the iPhone is the primary reason that AT&T is having network problems. While I agree AT&T is unable to get it's network far ahead of iPhone demand.
If AT&T were able to build these upgrades without the pressure of the iPhone their network would likely be in a far better position. Right now they are improving just ahead of being overwhelmed by the demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
IPhone has been a huge success for over 2 years. Apple doesn't run or maintain the 3G network, AT&T does if memory serves.They are responsible not the iPhone.
AT&T and all of the other cellular providers imagine an Internet with a toll booth at every entry point, on every device, and at every node or junction. Consumers want an internet with unlimited everything, one monthly charge per customer (not per device), no mention of terms like: Contracts, Kilobytes, Roaming Charges, Cancellation Charges, etc.
What's really happening here is that Apple is giving the customers what they want but AT&T (and the other networks) are giving the customers the shaft (or to be nice, exactly what the customers don't want). The Cable companies like Comcast are certainly no better.
right, i am sick of ATT charging so damned much for
1- phone service minutes
2- Data plan
3- SMS plan
at the end of the day i am charged TONS for my wife and my iphones and a Blackberry. isnt like at home where i get 1 charge for a cable modem and then entire house uses it.
wish i could use the iphone 3g on a network that allowed unlimited use, phone, data and SMS without all the charges. ie sprint's all in one fee. some smaller carriers even just charge $50 a month for all of that. not ATT for that you would easily pay about $150 + taxes. freaking ripoff
What you talking about ? AT&T should charge more for crap?
And I have no clue- HA!
Every other day AT&T is pushing more and more crappy little 3G phones for sale on TV and in full page print adds, overtaxing their network even more. AT&T is very slick indeed.
I live in a significantly less dense area than a place like San Fransisco, and I get extremely fast 3G service and never a dropped call on my iPhone. If there are areas, like San Fransisco, where the sheer numbers of users are essentially breaking the current network, then AT&T should price accordingly in that area to reduce the number of users. The fact that they have one service rate across the entire United States is moronic, and they deserve whatever scorn the get. But then clueless people would bitch to Congress (or are members of) about how dense urban centers are being targeted with price discrimination.
i wish i could use the iphone 3g on a network that allowed unlimited use, phone, data and SMS without all the charges. ie sprint's all in one fee. some smaller carriers even just charge $50 a month for all of that. not ATT for that you would easily pay about $150 + taxes. freaking ripoff
Sprint used to charge a lot more for data, Sprint only recently began that low all in one fee because they are near deaths door. If Sprint were in AT&T or Verizon's position they would charge just as much.
"Baloney" to this whole article. No one who wants an iPhone is going to let a few remaining issues get in their way. I went to an Apple Store just yesterday, and people are STILL LINING UP to buy the iPhone. Incredible! Fifteen minutes before the store opened, there were no less than 10 people wanting to purchase... that's staying power.
Also, the overly dramatic "wrecking" the industry nonsense is just that. Hype.
Two things here.
First is that when we were in England last week, we had problems getting a 3GS for our daughter. Out of stock at both O2 and CarWarehouse most of the time. Finally, Apple had it.
But this also points up something weird about the way some phones are distributed there, and maybe other places as well that has points detracted when compared to the US and AT&T.
When we went to O2, we found that not only were all the stores out of stock for several days, but that when they did get some stock in, it was done in a very strange way.
Here, when AT&T gets the phones in, you can get any type of plan you want that's being offered, or even a pay as you go method where you just buy the phone. Any phones there can go to any plan, or to pay as you go.
Not at O2, and CarWharehouse!
When they get phones in stock, they get phones designated for a particular plan. So they may get 20 phones for an 18 month plan, 6 phones for a monthly plan, and 8 phones for a pay as you go plan.
Each individual phone can only be sold with the plan that comes with THAT phone. If they run out of phones with their particular plan, then they can't sell the others with it.
Strange!
We couldn't get an 18 month or monthly plan for out daughter as we didn't have a credit history there, and they will only sell the plans with a British bank issued debit card. It would have taken us longer to get one than our planned trip. So we decided to get a pay as you go plan. We could buy the phone with AmEx, and pay for the Bolt ons and Top Ups with Amex, or pounds. Again, strange!
But we couldn't find pay as you go phones. We ended up buying a sim from O2 that would work in an iPhone, but was not an iPhone sim, as those are only available WITH iPhones, and buying the phone at Apple. So we have to pay for WiFi and Data serves at £10 a month, in addition to the Top Up charges.
Apple thought that was strange too.
Oh well, at least she got her phone.
Now, as far as Apple "wreaking" the industry, I think too many people are reading too much into that.
He didn't mean that literally.
What he meant was that Apple changes some basic relationships between the phone manufacturers and the carriers, which they certainly did. He's not been the only writer to express that. In fact here, many people posting have said that very same thing with glee since the 3G and the store came out, and even before with the 2g model.
It's true. AT&T has granted Apple a great deal of power in the relationship that was never before given. Other carriers that carry the iPhone have also broken down those barriers that were set up.
Even Verizon is now talking about their having their own app store, though as is typical with Verizon, THEY want to control it. Still, that's a big break from the past for them.
Phone manufacturers have never before had the freedom to come out with so many features without first having to go through carrier vetting and approvals.
I am in Australia with a landmass equivalent to the USA and with only 20 million people versus 280 million, what's that nearly a 15th the population.. spread over the same area.
I live in the middle of the country in a town of 27,000 people. The nearest population centres of significant numbers are 1500km + away. We have 21Mbit 3G here.
Often my iPhone 3GS clocks faster than my ADSL. MMS worked straight away and tethering also. I am up to 30km's out of town in a desert able to play / upload video. When I am on some of the larger communities nearby (1-200k) with 2-300 people EVEN they have a fully operational 3G network running at 7.2Mbit minimum.
Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone / 3 all offer the iPhone and Apple sells it unlocked on its AU website.
So what exactly is the problem in the USA with your carriers. Even CDMA/EVDO got shut down over a year ago, nationally, it was outdated.
You're not stating the situation correctly. You don't have your population spread out across most of the land mass. Most of the population centers on the coasts, with just a small number living in the interior. That's very different than in the states. Even if you don't include the large cities in the middle of the US, we still have several times your entire population in the interior of the country. That makes it much harder, and far more expensive.
As you can see, 84.7% of your people live within 50 kilometers (31 miles) of the coast. This is from the last census. It's not likely that much has changed since then.
The reason these types of examples hold no merit is because US carriers have to cover the third largest country in the world. Which is far more difficult and expensive than covering any one European country. Sweden is the size of one medium sized US state. For carriers to only use their resources to cover that much area would not cost nearly as much.
Why on earth aren't there cell networks in America that only cover one state? If trying to cover the entire US is the problem, let each state have their own networks.
AS long as the calls aren't dropped and the network is consistent- who cares?
I haven't gotten any dropped calls, and I live in NYC. I did have a lot of problems for the first three months with the phone going from 3G to EDGE and back, but never a dropped call. Things have been pretty good since then, though the data speeds could be better.
It would be nice if GSM call quality was better though. No phone I've ever used on any GSM network as ever had call quality as good as what I had on Sprint either with my old Samsung i300, i330 or Treo 700p.
My point is that the success of the iPhone is the primary reason that AT&T is having network problems. While I agree AT&T is unable to get it's network far ahead of iPhone demand.
If AT&T were able to build these upgrades without the pressure of the iPhone their network would likely be in a far better position. Right now they are improving just ahead of being overwhelmed by the demand.
Well, to be fair to Tekstud's point of view, neither Cingular nor AT&T were ever stated as having the greatest networks or service. That goes long before the iPhone made its appearance.
I remember that as they were merging, the question in the industry was whether two second rate carriers together would be better than either one , or worse.
I'm not sure we have an answer to that.
My experience has been that AT&T is ok. Not great, not as bad as some are trying to say.
I don't think the differences between the major carriers are that great, on average.
But it's true the massive data usage of the iPhone makes it more difficult for AT&T than it would be otherwise.
Why on earth aren't there cell networks in America that only cover one state? If trying to cover the entire US is the problem, let each state have their own networks.
Great idea. Can you imagine the screaming when you went across the border to another State and got charged roaming? Absurd!
Comments
Dropped calla isn't proof that AT&T hasn't upgraded it's network. With the number of iPhones in New York if AT&T had not upgraded it's network you likely would not be getting any calls at all.
Upgrade? "Dropped calls isn't proof" - then what is it? Do you know how often I can't even browse Safari on 3G here? If that an upgrade - how poor was it before? As my long time iPhone friend told me- "Verizon owns NY- get use to it."
I extremely doubt that it has been upgraded here.
Having said that, I wouldn't trade my iPhone experience for anything else.
Luckily for Verizon they don't have to worry with glutting their network with the most popular phones. And they still get to over charge.
AS long as the calls aren't dropped and the network is consistent- who cares?
And your point? Is it cool for AT&T to act like a slum lord then? Glut the network, let it crap out, and overcharge at the same time?
If the network is being overtaxed because there are too many people on it, then obviously AT&T should be charging more to reach a balance. When you say that AT&T is overcharging, in the same sentence that you say there is a glut of users, all you do is show that you have no clue what you are talking about.
If the network is being overtaxed because there are too many people on it, then obviously AT&T should be charging more to reach a balance. When you say that AT&T is overcharging, in the same sentence that you say there is a glut of users, all you do is show that you have no clue what you are talking about.
What you talking about ? AT&T should charge more for crap?
And I have no clue- HA!
Every other day AT&T is pushing more and more crappy little 3G phones for sale on TV and in full page print adds, overtaxing their network even more. AT&T is very slick indeed.
AT&T's and Verizon's subscriber base is eight times Austrailia's entire population. The US is divided between GSM and CDMA. US carriers have many more people to serve and US infrastructure is divided between two different network technologies.
All Austrailian carriers use GSM. From what I understand the Austrailian government invests money into the wireless infrastructure. The US government does not directly invest money into wireless infrastructure.
The point is that these differences between Austrailia and the US make it much easier and cheaper to build an advanced network in Austrialia.
Actually no that's not the answer...
I am in Australia with a landmass equivalent to the USA and with only 20 million people versus 280 million, what's that nearly a 15th the population.. spread over the same area.
I live in the middle of the country in a town of 27,000 people. The nearest population centres of significant numbers are 1500km + away. We have 21Mbit 3G here.
Often my iPhone 3GS clocks faster than my ADSL. MMS worked straight away and tethering also. I am up to 30km's out of town in a desert able to play / upload video. When I am on some of the larger communities nearby (1-200k) with 2-300 people EVEN they have a fully operational 3G network running at 7.2Mbit minimum.
Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone / 3 all offer the iPhone and Apple sells it unlocked on its AU website.
So what exactly is the problem in the USA with your carriers. Even CDMA/EVDO got shut down over a year ago, nationally, it was outdated.
Upgrade? "Dropped calls isn't proof" - then what is it? Do you know how often I can't even browse Safari on 3G here? If that an upgrade - how poor was it before? As my long time iPhone friend told me- "Verizon owns NY- get use to it."
I extremely doubt that it has been upgraded here.
Having said that, I wouldn't trade my iPhone experience for anything else.
AS long as the calls aren't dropped and the network is consistent- who cares?
So Verizon never drops calls?
Maybe once or thrice in 8 years that I used them. That's a pretty great rate I'd say-must be one of the reasons if not the main one that they are so popular with business here.
The reason you cannot browse 3G is because the iPhone is a huge success.
IPhone has been a huge success for over 2 years. Apple doesn't run or maintain the 3G network, AT&T does if memory serves.They are responsible not the iPhone.
If AT&T were able to build these upgrades without the pressure of the iPhone their network would likely be in a far better position. Right now they are improving just ahead of being overwhelmed by the demand.
IPhone has been a huge success for over 2 years. Apple doesn't run or maintain the 3G network, AT&T does if memory serves.They are responsible not the iPhone.
This author is so far off the deep end. Whoa!
AT&T and all of the other cellular providers imagine an Internet with a toll booth at every entry point, on every device, and at every node or junction. Consumers want an internet with unlimited everything, one monthly charge per customer (not per device), no mention of terms like: Contracts, Kilobytes, Roaming Charges, Cancellation Charges, etc.
What's really happening here is that Apple is giving the customers what they want but AT&T (and the other networks) are giving the customers the shaft (or to be nice, exactly what the customers don't want). The Cable companies like Comcast are certainly no better.
right, i am sick of ATT charging so damned much for
1- phone service minutes
2- Data plan
3- SMS plan
at the end of the day i am charged TONS for my wife and my iphones and a Blackberry. isnt like at home where i get 1 charge for a cable modem and then entire house uses it.
wish i could use the iphone 3g on a network that allowed unlimited use, phone, data and SMS without all the charges. ie sprint's all in one fee. some smaller carriers even just charge $50 a month for all of that. not ATT for that you would easily pay about $150 + taxes. freaking ripoff
What you talking about ? AT&T should charge more for crap?
And I have no clue- HA!
Every other day AT&T is pushing more and more crappy little 3G phones for sale on TV and in full page print adds, overtaxing their network even more. AT&T is very slick indeed.
I live in a significantly less dense area than a place like San Fransisco, and I get extremely fast 3G service and never a dropped call on my iPhone. If there are areas, like San Fransisco, where the sheer numbers of users are essentially breaking the current network, then AT&T should price accordingly in that area to reduce the number of users. The fact that they have one service rate across the entire United States is moronic, and they deserve whatever scorn the get. But then clueless people would bitch to Congress (or are members of) about how dense urban centers are being targeted with price discrimination.
right, i am sick of ATT charging so damned much
No one forced you to take AT&T service.
i wish i could use the iphone 3g on a network that allowed unlimited use, phone, data and SMS without all the charges. ie sprint's all in one fee. some smaller carriers even just charge $50 a month for all of that. not ATT for that you would easily pay about $150 + taxes. freaking ripoff
Sprint used to charge a lot more for data, Sprint only recently began that low all in one fee because they are near deaths door. If Sprint were in AT&T or Verizon's position they would charge just as much.
"Baloney" to this whole article. No one who wants an iPhone is going to let a few remaining issues get in their way. I went to an Apple Store just yesterday, and people are STILL LINING UP to buy the iPhone. Incredible! Fifteen minutes before the store opened, there were no less than 10 people wanting to purchase... that's staying power.
Also, the overly dramatic "wrecking" the industry nonsense is just that. Hype.
Two things here.
First is that when we were in England last week, we had problems getting a 3GS for our daughter. Out of stock at both O2 and CarWarehouse most of the time. Finally, Apple had it.
But this also points up something weird about the way some phones are distributed there, and maybe other places as well that has points detracted when compared to the US and AT&T.
When we went to O2, we found that not only were all the stores out of stock for several days, but that when they did get some stock in, it was done in a very strange way.
Here, when AT&T gets the phones in, you can get any type of plan you want that's being offered, or even a pay as you go method where you just buy the phone. Any phones there can go to any plan, or to pay as you go.
Not at O2, and CarWharehouse!
When they get phones in stock, they get phones designated for a particular plan. So they may get 20 phones for an 18 month plan, 6 phones for a monthly plan, and 8 phones for a pay as you go plan.
Each individual phone can only be sold with the plan that comes with THAT phone. If they run out of phones with their particular plan, then they can't sell the others with it.
Strange!
We couldn't get an 18 month or monthly plan for out daughter as we didn't have a credit history there, and they will only sell the plans with a British bank issued debit card. It would have taken us longer to get one than our planned trip. So we decided to get a pay as you go plan. We could buy the phone with AmEx, and pay for the Bolt ons and Top Ups with Amex, or pounds. Again, strange!
But we couldn't find pay as you go phones. We ended up buying a sim from O2 that would work in an iPhone, but was not an iPhone sim, as those are only available WITH iPhones, and buying the phone at Apple. So we have to pay for WiFi and Data serves at £10 a month, in addition to the Top Up charges.
Apple thought that was strange too.
Oh well, at least she got her phone.
Now, as far as Apple "wreaking" the industry, I think too many people are reading too much into that.
He didn't mean that literally.
What he meant was that Apple changes some basic relationships between the phone manufacturers and the carriers, which they certainly did. He's not been the only writer to express that. In fact here, many people posting have said that very same thing with glee since the 3G and the store came out, and even before with the 2g model.
It's true. AT&T has granted Apple a great deal of power in the relationship that was never before given. Other carriers that carry the iPhone have also broken down those barriers that were set up.
Even Verizon is now talking about their having their own app store, though as is typical with Verizon, THEY want to control it. Still, that's a big break from the past for them.
Phone manufacturers have never before had the freedom to come out with so many features without first having to go through carrier vetting and approvals.
Actually no that's not the answer...
I am in Australia with a landmass equivalent to the USA and with only 20 million people versus 280 million, what's that nearly a 15th the population.. spread over the same area.
I live in the middle of the country in a town of 27,000 people. The nearest population centres of significant numbers are 1500km + away. We have 21Mbit 3G here.
Often my iPhone 3GS clocks faster than my ADSL. MMS worked straight away and tethering also. I am up to 30km's out of town in a desert able to play / upload video. When I am on some of the larger communities nearby (1-200k) with 2-300 people EVEN they have a fully operational 3G network running at 7.2Mbit minimum.
Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone / 3 all offer the iPhone and Apple sells it unlocked on its AU website.
So what exactly is the problem in the USA with your carriers. Even CDMA/EVDO got shut down over a year ago, nationally, it was outdated.
You're not stating the situation correctly. You don't have your population spread out across most of the land mass. Most of the population centers on the coasts, with just a small number living in the interior. That's very different than in the states. Even if you don't include the large cities in the middle of the US, we still have several times your entire population in the interior of the country. That makes it much harder, and far more expensive.
As you can see, 84.7% of your people live within 50 kilometers (31 miles) of the coast. This is from the last census. It's not likely that much has changed since then.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]?OpenDocument
From this map, you'll see that coverage is MUCH sparser over the entire country than it is in the US.
http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/net...age/index.html
The reason these types of examples hold no merit is because US carriers have to cover the third largest country in the world. Which is far more difficult and expensive than covering any one European country. Sweden is the size of one medium sized US state. For carriers to only use their resources to cover that much area would not cost nearly as much.
Why on earth aren't there cell networks in America that only cover one state? If trying to cover the entire US is the problem, let each state have their own networks.
AS long as the calls aren't dropped and the network is consistent- who cares?
I haven't gotten any dropped calls, and I live in NYC. I did have a lot of problems for the first three months with the phone going from 3G to EDGE and back, but never a dropped call. Things have been pretty good since then, though the data speeds could be better.
It would be nice if GSM call quality was better though. No phone I've ever used on any GSM network as ever had call quality as good as what I had on Sprint either with my old Samsung i300, i330 or Treo 700p.
My point is that the success of the iPhone is the primary reason that AT&T is having network problems. While I agree AT&T is unable to get it's network far ahead of iPhone demand.
If AT&T were able to build these upgrades without the pressure of the iPhone their network would likely be in a far better position. Right now they are improving just ahead of being overwhelmed by the demand.
Well, to be fair to Tekstud's point of view, neither Cingular nor AT&T were ever stated as having the greatest networks or service. That goes long before the iPhone made its appearance.
I remember that as they were merging, the question in the industry was whether two second rate carriers together would be better than either one , or worse.
I'm not sure we have an answer to that.
My experience has been that AT&T is ok. Not great, not as bad as some are trying to say.
I don't think the differences between the major carriers are that great, on average.
But it's true the massive data usage of the iPhone makes it more difficult for AT&T than it would be otherwise.
Why on earth aren't there cell networks in America that only cover one state? If trying to cover the entire US is the problem, let each state have their own networks.
Great idea. Can you imagine the screaming when you went across the border to another State and got charged roaming? Absurd!