Some believe that Verizon's network would also falter under the weight of iPhone's data usage. I have no idea whether it will or not, and I haven't invested a penny in AT&T (other than paying the bills), but AT&T is making the argument that because of the stress created by iPhone, AT&T is building up capacity in their cell and backhaul network much faster than Verizon. (iPhone users can't see it right now because the network's still swamped by too many iPhones using lots of data.)
I call that pure BS.
Verizon's capex (capital expenditure) budget has always been a lot higher than AT&T --- because Verizon subsidized less money on handsets.
How can you really call it pure BS, with no viable way to prove it true or false. I doubt Verizon even really knows for sure.
Because companies need to account (in their annual reports) for the billions of dollars spent on capital expenditures. He who spends more on capital expenditure will have a faster and better network build-out.
That's no indicator of how well the network can handle a full data load. Without doubt any network would have some degree of problems, nothing is perfect.
You make some great points at times, but with VZW you loose all objectivity. You treat them as though they are perfect and make no mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Because companies need to account (in their annual reports) for the billions of dollars spent on capital expenditures. He who spends more on capital expenditure will have a faster and better network build-out.
That's no indicator of how well the network can handle a full data load. Without doubt any network would have some degree of problems, nothing is perfect.
You make some great points at times, but with VZW you loose all objectivity. You treat them as though they are perfect and make no mistakes.
When did I lose objectivity?
I responded to mark's comment that AT&T is building out faster than Verizon --- and I said that can't be true because build-outs are determined by capex budgets.
I didn't even mention anything on whether Verizon can or cannot handle the increased data load. I agree with you that nobody is perfect and all the carriers will make mistakes --- but it is strictly a relative exercise. Verizon just need to "suck less" than their competitors in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown.
It's not that difficult to maintain the "it's the network" crown because Verizon has historically have a higher capex budget. Will Verizon's iphone launch impact negatively on their data network's performance --- definitely yes. But will Verizon maintain the "we suck the least among all the wireless carriers who have basically the same trustworthy rating of a used car saleman" crown --- not that hard to imagine.
From what I understood of his point essentially that it's unknown how VZW network would handle a similar load. Granted VZW is starting from a better place. If Verizon had a phone that used as much data it would reveal some type of problem in their network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
When did I lose objectivity?
I responded to mark's comment that AT&T is building out faster than Verizon --- and I said that can't be true because build-outs are determined by capex budgets.
I didn't even mention anything on whether Verizon can or cannot handle the increased data load. I agree with you that nobody is perfect and all the carriers will make mistakes --- but it is strictly a relative exercise. Verizon just need to "suck less" than their competitors in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown.
It's not that difficult to maintain the "it's the network" crown because Verizon has historically have a higher capex budget. Will Verizon's iphone launch impact negatively on their data network's performance --- definitely yes. But will Verizon maintain the "we suck the least among all the wireless carriers who have basically the same trustworthy rating of a used car saleman" crown --- not that hard to imagine.
I responded to mark's comment that AT&T is building out faster than Verizon --- and I said that can't be true because build-outs are determined by capex budgets.
Depends. Do you have the split between wireless buildout and fiber buildout for AT&T and Verizon? I'm thinking FiOS is costing Verizon more than UVerse is AT&T and if I remember correctly the UVerse roll out slowed down this year. I think it took the brunt of the capex reduction.
Also, Verizon says it spent 17B in capex in 2008. AT&T spent $19B.
"AT&T (T) today said it has budgeted $17 billion to $18 billion for capital spending for 2009, which will be down from the $19.7 billion spent in 2009, and about flat with the $17.7 billion the company spent in 2007. At the midpoint of the range, spending would be down 11.1%. The company nonetheless says it expects it will spend more this year than any other U.S. telecom company."
Doesn't seem like your information is correct. AT&T has been outspending Verizon in '08 and '09 and likely making wireless more of a priority than fiber than Verizon. Verizon hasn't slowed down on FiOS as far as I've read.
Depends. Do you have the split between wireless buildout and fiber buildout for AT&T and Verizon? I'm thinking FiOS is costing Verizon more than UVerse is AT&T and if I remember correctly the UVerse roll out slowed down this year. I think it took the brunt of the capex reduction.
Also, Verizon says it spent 17B in capex in 2008. AT&T spent $19B.
"AT&T (T) today said it has budgeted $17 billion to $18 billion for capital spending for 2009, which will be down from the $19.7 billion spent in 2009, and about flat with the $17.7 billion the company spent in 2007. At the midpoint of the range, spending would be down 11.1%. The company nonetheless says it expects it will spend more this year than any other U.S. telecom company."
Doesn't seem like your information is correct. AT&T has been outspending Verizon in '08 and '09 and likely making wireless more of a priority than fiber than Verizon. Verizon hasn't slowed down on FiOS as far as I've read.
2/3 of capex went into the wireless and wired networks and the remaining 1/3 goes to merger related stuff.
Verizon basically hasn't swallowed anyone up since 2000.
We realize that the substantially larger amount of AT&T test takers may unfairly contribute to an overall lower download speed — so take this considerably lower result with a nugget of salt.
I wouldn't take these speed surveys as gospel. Last year PC
Magazine found AT&T the fastest. Gizmodo found Sprint the fastest.
I think there are so many variables envolved. The most one can say is this was the fastest network for the period of time we tested.
That study didn't account for many variables, such as the amount of voice/data transiting the network at the time of the test. The AT&T network could've been slower precisely because it was burdened with more traffic, even though technically it could've been faster.
And thus doesn't answer my original question, which rephrased is as follows: If both the AT&T network and Verizon network were carrying the same amount of traffic, which would be faster? Or which network could carry more traffic at a given rate of speed?
AT&T is building their network much slower than Verizon because AT&T has a lower capex budget.
This is also not clearly true. From 1Q07 through 1Q09, AT&T had total capex of 40.6B, while VZW had 38.5B. AT&T doesn't include the splits between wireline, wireless, and other (including spectrum acquisition) in their quarterly reports; and altho VZW does include a wireline/wireless split, it doesn't clearly state what's included under wireless capex. At the top level, of the 17.2B spent by VZW on capex in 2008, only 6.5B went to wireless; most of the other 11.7B went to wireline (FIOS).
I'll have to dig further to see what the real amounts spent on 3G/4G wireless infrastructure upgrades are.
Even though Verizon gained 14 million subscribers and had to divest assets because of anti-trust, Samab doesn't consider Alltel wasn't a merger.
I don't consider it because the scale of the Alltel merger is a lot less than AT&T doing 4 mergers (cingular/at&t wireless/SBC/BellSouth) in this decade, and Alltel real merger related integration hasn't happened yet.
Everything is relative --- Verizon just have to "suck less" in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown. AT&T doing 4 mergers in this decade is a lot more work than Verizon doing 1 merger in the next 18 months.
I don't consider it because the scale of the Alltel merger is a lot less than AT&T doing 4 mergers (cingular/at&t wireless/SBC/BellSouth) in this decade, and Alltel real merger related integration hasn't happened yet.
Everything is relative --- Verizon just have to "suck less" in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown. AT&T doing 4 mergers in this decade is a lot more work than Verizon doing 1 merger in the next 18 months.
In all the AT&T mergers, there was really only one wireless acquisition- Cingular (with 24 million customers) buying AT&T Wireless (with 22 million customers), and that was worth $41B, and closed in 10/2004. (The other mergers of SBC, Bell South, and what remained of AT&T, involved combining wireline assets and transferring ownership of Cingular. All of this closed by 12/2006.)
Verizon bought Alltel (with 13 million customers) for $28B; with the acquisition closing in 1/2009. I think this acquisition is in the same ballpark as Cingular/ATT, and it was/is impacting capex during this past year.
I don't consider it because the scale of the Alltel merger is a lot less than AT&T doing 4 mergers (cingular/at&t wireless/SBC/BellSouth) in this decade, and Alltel real merger related integration hasn't happened yet.
Everything is relative --- Verizon just have to "suck less" in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown. AT&T doing 4 mergers in this decade is a lot more work than Verizon doing 1 merger in the next 18 months.
Everything you've said in this thread loses credibility when you make a statement like that. Heard of Bell Atlantic? GTE? MCI? (Quite apart from which, 14 million subscribers from Alltel isn't chump change either).
I don't consider it because the scale of the Alltel merger is a lot less than AT&T doing 4 mergers (cingular/at&t wireless/SBC/BellSouth) in this decade, and Alltel real merger related integration hasn't happened yet.
Everything is relative --- Verizon just have to "suck less" in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown. AT&T doing 4 mergers in this decade is a lot more work than Verizon doing 1 merger in the next 18 months.
Alltel integration has begun. They were a wholly owned subsidiary until June 2009 when they were formally integrated into Verizon.
And I don't see how mergers matter anyway. As was posted before, there are three things that HAVE to happen before there's a Verizon phone:
Apple must be able to make a CDMA+GSM+4G phone combination to sell to both GSM providers and Verizon, or be willing to make a CDMA/4G phone for VZ only. The former is not a given, since the iPhone's space is at a premium--CDMA and GSM combined chipsets are available but due to licensing restrictions, they are expensive and are only available in larger devices at the moment. The silicon issue will become less of a hurdle as technology progresses, but then you have to add a 4G chipset/radio which will be very new and will likely suck up power and silicon space just as badly as the first 3G chipset/radio. So a combination phone with 3 radios in it may not be possible in the space that Apple likes to work with, which means Apple might have to compromise on their form factor/battery life.
Verizon must be willing to work with the black box that is Apple/Steve jobs. AT&T was basically told "We'll make a cool device for your network, but you don't have any say in anything". It's well known that AT&T was forced to make some big concessions to get the iPhone, and then AT&T was told they would have little to no say in the device. We already know Verizon is pretty picky about its handset's capabilities--they disabled GPS on some devices to force people to use VZ Navigator (causing many lawsuits).
Verizon has to upgrade their network to handle iPhone specific features. Specifically visual voicemail, MMS over 3G (not all areas in the US currently supports this; some towers drop back to 2.5G--hence the AT&T delay) and of course the data usage that the iPhone will inherit. Anybody who denies that Verizon needs to increase data capacity should try using the VZ TV feature in a crowded football stadium, when a lot of people are using their phone--it simply doesn't work, as my brother found out. Same thing happens to the iPhone, and same thing will happen to Verizon.
People give AT&T a lot of crap, but I'm fairly happy with the service. Not so happy about the delay in MMS and Tethering, but what can you do.
The ONLY reason I would switch to a Verizon iPhone is that Verizon is the only wireless company in my area that has 3G service. I could save a bit of money tethering my iphone for my internet connection, rather than having my AT&T iPhone and paying 60$ a month for mobile broadband from Verizon.
Comments
Some believe that Verizon's network would also falter under the weight of iPhone's data usage. I have no idea whether it will or not, and I haven't invested a penny in AT&T (other than paying the bills), but AT&T is making the argument that because of the stress created by iPhone, AT&T is building up capacity in their cell and backhaul network much faster than Verizon. (iPhone users can't see it right now because the network's still swamped by too many iPhones using lots of data.)
I call that pure BS.
Verizon's capex (capital expenditure) budget has always been a lot higher than AT&T --- because Verizon subsidized less money on handsets.
http://www.glgroup.com/News/ATTs-200...zon-30841.html
AT&T is building their network much slower than Verizon because AT&T has a lower capex budget.
I call that pure BS.
Verizon's capex (capital expenditure) budget has always been a lot higher than AT&T --- because Verizon subsidized less money on handsets.
AT&T is building their network much slower than Verizon because AT&T has a lower capex budget.
How can you really call it pure BS, with no viable way to prove it true or false. I doubt Verizon even really knows for sure.
Because companies need to account (in their annual reports) for the billions of dollars spent on capital expenditures. He who spends more on capital expenditure will have a faster and better network build-out.
You make some great points at times, but with VZW you loose all objectivity. You treat them as though they are perfect and make no mistakes.
Because companies need to account (in their annual reports) for the billions of dollars spent on capital expenditures. He who spends more on capital expenditure will have a faster and better network build-out.
That's no indicator of how well the network can handle a full data load. Without doubt any network would have some degree of problems, nothing is perfect.
You make some great points at times, but with VZW you loose all objectivity. You treat them as though they are perfect and make no mistakes.
When did I lose objectivity?
I responded to mark's comment that AT&T is building out faster than Verizon --- and I said that can't be true because build-outs are determined by capex budgets.
I didn't even mention anything on whether Verizon can or cannot handle the increased data load. I agree with you that nobody is perfect and all the carriers will make mistakes --- but it is strictly a relative exercise. Verizon just need to "suck less" than their competitors in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown.
It's not that difficult to maintain the "it's the network" crown because Verizon has historically have a higher capex budget. Will Verizon's iphone launch impact negatively on their data network's performance --- definitely yes. But will Verizon maintain the "we suck the least among all the wireless carriers who have basically the same trustworthy rating of a used car saleman" crown --- not that hard to imagine.
When did I lose objectivity?
I responded to mark's comment that AT&T is building out faster than Verizon --- and I said that can't be true because build-outs are determined by capex budgets.
I didn't even mention anything on whether Verizon can or cannot handle the increased data load. I agree with you that nobody is perfect and all the carriers will make mistakes --- but it is strictly a relative exercise. Verizon just need to "suck less" than their competitors in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown.
It's not that difficult to maintain the "it's the network" crown because Verizon has historically have a higher capex budget. Will Verizon's iphone launch impact negatively on their data network's performance --- definitely yes. But will Verizon maintain the "we suck the least among all the wireless carriers who have basically the same trustworthy rating of a used car saleman" crown --- not that hard to imagine.
We already seen Verizon's 3.1 mbps EV-DO rev A network being actually faster in real life than AT&T's 3.6 mbps HSDPA network.
Do you have a link to that study?
I responded to mark's comment that AT&T is building out faster than Verizon --- and I said that can't be true because build-outs are determined by capex budgets.
Depends. Do you have the split between wireless buildout and fiber buildout for AT&T and Verizon? I'm thinking FiOS is costing Verizon more than UVerse is AT&T and if I remember correctly the UVerse roll out slowed down this year. I think it took the brunt of the capex reduction.
Also, Verizon says it spent 17B in capex in 2008. AT&T spent $19B.
http://www.wirelessweek.com/News-ATT...09-031109.aspx
"AT&T (T) today said it has budgeted $17 billion to $18 billion for capital spending for 2009, which will be down from the $19.7 billion spent in 2009, and about flat with the $17.7 billion the company spent in 2007. At the midpoint of the range, spending would be down 11.1%. The company nonetheless says it expects it will spend more this year than any other U.S. telecom company."
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderd...ply-from-2008/
Doesn't seem like your information is correct. AT&T has been outspending Verizon in '08 and '09 and likely making wireless more of a priority than fiber than Verizon. Verizon hasn't slowed down on FiOS as far as I've read.
Do you have a link to that study?
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/3g-speed-test/
Depends. Do you have the split between wireless buildout and fiber buildout for AT&T and Verizon? I'm thinking FiOS is costing Verizon more than UVerse is AT&T and if I remember correctly the UVerse roll out slowed down this year. I think it took the brunt of the capex reduction.
Also, Verizon says it spent 17B in capex in 2008. AT&T spent $19B.
http://www.wirelessweek.com/News-ATT...09-031109.aspx
"AT&T (T) today said it has budgeted $17 billion to $18 billion for capital spending for 2009, which will be down from the $19.7 billion spent in 2009, and about flat with the $17.7 billion the company spent in 2007. At the midpoint of the range, spending would be down 11.1%. The company nonetheless says it expects it will spend more this year than any other U.S. telecom company."
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderd...ply-from-2008/
Doesn't seem like your information is correct. AT&T has been outspending Verizon in '08 and '09 and likely making wireless more of a priority than fiber than Verizon. Verizon hasn't slowed down on FiOS as far as I've read.
2/3 of capex went into the wireless and wired networks and the remaining 1/3 goes to merger related stuff.
Verizon basically hasn't swallowed anyone up since 2000.
I wouldn't take these speed surveys as gospel. Last year PC
Magazine found AT&T the fastest. Gizmodo found Sprint the fastest.
I think there are so many variables envolved. The most one can say is this was the fastest network for the period of time we tested.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/3g-speed-test/
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/3g-speed-test/
That study didn't account for many variables, such as the amount of voice/data transiting the network at the time of the test. The AT&T network could've been slower precisely because it was burdened with more traffic, even though technically it could've been faster.
And thus doesn't answer my original question, which rephrased is as follows: If both the AT&T network and Verizon network were carrying the same amount of traffic, which would be faster? Or which network could carry more traffic at a given rate of speed?
I call that pure BS.
Verizon's capex (capital expenditure) budget has always been a lot higher than AT&T --- because Verizon subsidized less money on handsets.
http://www.glgroup.com/News/ATTs-200...zon-30841.html
AT&T is building their network much slower than Verizon because AT&T has a lower capex budget.
This is also not clearly true. From 1Q07 through 1Q09, AT&T had total capex of 40.6B, while VZW had 38.5B. AT&T doesn't include the splits between wireline, wireless, and other (including spectrum acquisition) in their quarterly reports; and altho VZW does include a wireline/wireless split, it doesn't clearly state what's included under wireless capex. At the top level, of the 17.2B spent by VZW on capex in 2008, only 6.5B went to wireless; most of the other 11.7B went to wireline (FIOS).
I'll have to dig further to see what the real amounts spent on 3G/4G wireless infrastructure upgrades are.
2/3 of capex went into the wireless and wired networks and the remaining 1/3 goes to merger related stuff.
Verizon basically hasn't swallowed anyone up since 2000.
Verizon bought Alltel last year.
Verizon bought Alltel last year.
Even though Verizon gained 14 million subscribers and had to divest assets because of anti-trust, Samab doesn't consider Alltel wasn't a merger.
I don't consider it because the scale of the Alltel merger is a lot less than AT&T doing 4 mergers (cingular/at&t wireless/SBC/BellSouth) in this decade, and Alltel real merger related integration hasn't happened yet.
Everything is relative --- Verizon just have to "suck less" in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown. AT&T doing 4 mergers in this decade is a lot more work than Verizon doing 1 merger in the next 18 months.
I don't consider it because the scale of the Alltel merger is a lot less than AT&T doing 4 mergers (cingular/at&t wireless/SBC/BellSouth) in this decade, and Alltel real merger related integration hasn't happened yet.
Everything is relative --- Verizon just have to "suck less" in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown. AT&T doing 4 mergers in this decade is a lot more work than Verizon doing 1 merger in the next 18 months.
In all the AT&T mergers, there was really only one wireless acquisition- Cingular (with 24 million customers) buying AT&T Wireless (with 22 million customers), and that was worth $41B, and closed in 10/2004. (The other mergers of SBC, Bell South, and what remained of AT&T, involved combining wireline assets and transferring ownership of Cingular. All of this closed by 12/2006.)
Verizon bought Alltel (with 13 million customers) for $28B; with the acquisition closing in 1/2009. I think this acquisition is in the same ballpark as Cingular/ATT, and it was/is impacting capex during this past year.
I don't consider it because the scale of the Alltel merger is a lot less than AT&T doing 4 mergers (cingular/at&t wireless/SBC/BellSouth) in this decade, and Alltel real merger related integration hasn't happened yet.
Everything is relative --- Verizon just have to "suck less" in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown. AT&T doing 4 mergers in this decade is a lot more work than Verizon doing 1 merger in the next 18 months.
Everything you've said in this thread loses credibility when you make a statement like that. Heard of Bell Atlantic? GTE? MCI? (Quite apart from which, 14 million subscribers from Alltel isn't chump change either).
Please take a moment to read http://investor.verizon.com/profile/history/!
I don't consider it because the scale of the Alltel merger is a lot less than AT&T doing 4 mergers (cingular/at&t wireless/SBC/BellSouth) in this decade, and Alltel real merger related integration hasn't happened yet.
Everything is relative --- Verizon just have to "suck less" in order to maintain their "it's the network" crown. AT&T doing 4 mergers in this decade is a lot more work than Verizon doing 1 merger in the next 18 months.
Alltel integration has begun. They were a wholly owned subsidiary until June 2009 when they were formally integrated into Verizon.
And I don't see how mergers matter anyway. As was posted before, there are three things that HAVE to happen before there's a Verizon phone:
The ONLY reason I would switch to a Verizon iPhone is that Verizon is the only wireless company in my area that has 3G service. I could save a bit of money tethering my iphone for my internet connection, rather than having my AT&T iPhone and paying 60$ a month for mobile broadband from Verizon.
Damn country living anyways...lol