I generally believe that AT&T was blindsided by the popularity of the iPhone -- particularly once the iPhone 3G was released. AT&T never had the best network. But when you were using a RAZR, the lackluster performance wasn't all the surprising when you were using a pretty lackluster device. Often, it was hard to say whether the problem was the phone or the network -- either one would be easily believable.
But the high quality of the iPhone casts the mediocrity of AT&T's network into sharp relief. Apple worked hard to create a device that was elegant and polished. Even though it didn't do everything, what it did, it did brilliantly. So when you did encounter a problem, it was so clearly not the device's fault. It was the network.
Now, add millions of iPhones, each one consuming a generous amount of data over 3G. That would make any network buckle, and I don't believe Verizon could have built out fast enough to accommodate the onslaught of iPhone users either.
The iPhone and other current smartphones also represent a significant change for all the cellular networks. Except for dedicated BlackBerry users, cellular data has until now been more of a novelty than an essential feature. But data is an essential requirement of the iPhone.
From the consumer's perspective, the problem is simple: the network doesn't work as well as they think it should, and they don't feel like they're getting a good value for their money. But the situation is always a lot more complicated than consumers like to make it. Believe me, we'd be cursing Verizon just as vociferously if they were the iPhone's exclusive US carrier.
The solution, which AT&T will never admit, is that a good iPhone experience can only be had if the users are spread out among multiple networks. All the carriers still have a lot of work to do to accommodate the huge amount of data users will consume in the coming years as all devices get smarter, but the multiple carrier solution is the only one that would give AT&T's network the relief it needs to work well.
I believe this will work out in a year or so when Apple's exclusivity agreement with AT&T runs out. The number of potential iPhone customers who are willing to use AT&T's network is going to run out at some point, and the tipping point will come soon, I think, when the gains made by offering the iPhone on multiple networks will outweigh the lost revenue from carrier subsidies that come with exclusivity.
As an existing AT&T customer, I'm angry that my service continues to get worse and worse (I went three days this weekend literally unable to make a single call from home, due to a large festival nearby).
The responsible thing for AT&T to do would be to say "cripes, we way underestimated demand, we're working as fast as we can to improve our network, and in the meantime we'll limit sales in the most affected markets so it at least doesn't get worse for everyone."
No wireless carrier can control the physical locations of their customers. The planners for your weekend festival should have called up every wireless carrier and asked for temporary, portable cell towers (on trucks) to service the crowds.
Also, cell phones are portable. If you stop selling in some markets due to network saturation, what is going to stop someone from driving a few miles to buy it elsewhere?
I'm not expecting any grand roll out of this anytime soon. Most of their network hasn't been upgraded to normal 3G and last time I checked, they have a tendency to put in the least amount of towers absolutely necessary.
I'm not expecting any grand roll out of this anytime soon. Most of their network hasn't been upgraded to normal 3G and last time I checked, they have a tendency to put in the least amount of towers absolutely necessary.
That is true with any wireless carrier....most cell towers are located on leased property (monthly rent).....the fewer the towers, the lower the cost for us.
No wireless carrier can control the physical locations of their customers. The planners for your weekend festival should have called up every wireless carrier and asked for temporary, portable cell towers (on trucks) to service the crowds.
I can't claim to be knowledgeable about the exact mechanics of who calls who, but friends' phones on Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile even were working fine during this *annual* Memorial day festival that draws around 150,000 people a day for three days. Maybe someone forgot to call AT&T, and the company isn't set up to notice and respond to a huge network failure over a holiday weekend.
My guess is that AT&T just couldn't support the volume, either due to lack of portable cells or due to lack of backhaul. One way or the other, I'm not buying the AT&T apologist angle. My phone says AT&T; if it doesn't work for a few days straight, I'm blaming AT&T. This fairground didn't just appear overnight, you know.
Quote:
Also, cell phones are portable. If you stop selling in some markets due to network saturation, what is going to stop someone from driving a few miles to buy it elsewhere?
Well, we're talking metro areas, so say it'd be a 50 mile drive. Still, nothing would stop people. It would, however, reduce the volume sold, and slow the gradual but noticeable disintegration of service for existing customers. It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least address the "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging" problem.
AT&T's network and business failures are complex. I'd be more willing to blame Apple, festival organizers, and Lee Harvey Oswald if AT&T wasn't actively making the problem worse. Until they indicate that they're taking every step possible to improve service, including foregoing short term revenue in massively oversubscribed markets, I'm going to hold them primarily responsible for the crappy service they're providing.
Yeah, but who came up with the simple, one size fits all, unlimited data plan for web and e-mail?
Sounds like an Apple thing to do. If AT&T is solely in control, they could easily price tier the data plans in an effort to curb demand on it's network. If AT&T did try this, how fast would Steve Jobs want the CEO of AT&T in Steve's office in Cupertino???
I bet there are more limitations on the iPhone then we know of, other than AT&T's inability to meet the data demand on it's network that ruins the iPhone experience.
Me, I want AT&T to stop selling phones in markets where its service is already strained to the point of basically not working during peak hours.
What about Apple selling phones?
I mean once the user gets the phone, they go to AT&T for the network, good or as poor as it may be, because the phone is nothing without a service provider. So Apple would have to agree to not to sell in over saturated markets or markets where AT&T service underperforms.
I don't think that is going to happen though, because Apple is in the business of selling iPhones.
I'm surprised and psyched Charlotte is on the list. I don't have one myself but actually most people I know locally with an iPhone say they rarely get dropped calls and 3G coverage is pretty good so maybe their coverage here is better than their average.
Seems that they should really be pushing to get DC Metro area on their side and upgrade the networks that service Congress, the FCC, etc.
Oddly, DC seems to be an iPhone enclave. I've heard very few complaints about 3g service here, probably because it is a Blackberry kind of town. Time will tell I spose.
As for the "Verizon would have been just as overloaded" argument, agreed, to a point. Verizon has been pouring, nay, shoveling money into upgrades for years, getting ready for LTE and before that 3g. So yes, there would have been problems, but likely not as many.
Also, yes, Apple would have to build a CDMA iPhone. Apparently "everyone knows" Apple would never in a goog-illion years dare to put a CDMA radio in their phone instead of a GSM. They could have just made both. The extra sales would more than make up for the extra cost.
AND, more to the point, it would have spread out that bandwidth crunch. So it's not really AT&T OR Verizon, but if it was AT&T AND Verizon, you'd have fewer problems.
I know Verizon wanted more control, blah blah blah. The reality is this: My dad walked into an AT&T Store and the guy told him they'd have iPhones in in about a week. He walked out and walked into an Apple store. 12 minutes later he walked out with an activated phone. If that isn't the most telling thing, I don't know what is.
How can they put north carolina and texas before NYC? Why do rednecks need 7.2Mbps Speed for? AT&T needs to get their priorities straight.
Los Angeles, California and Miami, Florida are understandable but again not before the most important place on earth (NYC), We are after all responsible for this countries economy.
How can they put north carolina and texas before NYC? Why do rednecks need 7.2Mbps Speed for? AT&T needs to get their priorities straight.
Los Angeles, California and Miami, Florida are understandable but again not before the most important place on earth (NYC), We are after all responsible for this countries economy.
Nice post. Actually, there are tons of people in Charlotte who have fled from the Northeast. Being a redneck must be desirable.
I was surprised to see Miami. I was down there two months ago and the coverage was great, compared to here. I look forward to any improvements they can make.
BTW - this might not be true since last year, but it was for a while:
"Measured by control of assets, Charlotte is the second largest banking headquarters in the United States after New York City"
Meanwhile Telecom Italia in Italy completed network and backhaul upgrades and activated HSPA 28Mbit in June.
Telstra in Australia has almost completed the nationwide rollout and upgrades for 21Mbit (The cities had it in Feb) and will activate 42Mbit in the cities in the next two months.
Wouldn't Apple actually have to put a GSM AND a CDMA radio in the phone to work on the current Verizon network and work outside the country? Isn't that how Verizon "world" phones work now? CDMA in the US and GSM outside the US?
Does anyone think Apple would release a model that could only be used IN the US and not work in other countries? Though most people would never use them outside the country, that is just the type of thing that competitors and Internet "experts" would jump all over. I can see RIM discussing the unlimited usage area for the Storm on a big globe in their ads already.
By being on a GSM carrier in the US, the iPhone can be used on any network that supports the same frequencies worldwide.
Disclamer: I'm not a Verizon customer, but I do support our users who have Verizon phones. So, I do have a bit of familairity with their products, but please pardon my ignorance if this is wrong.
Comments
But the high quality of the iPhone casts the mediocrity of AT&T's network into sharp relief. Apple worked hard to create a device that was elegant and polished. Even though it didn't do everything, what it did, it did brilliantly. So when you did encounter a problem, it was so clearly not the device's fault. It was the network.
Now, add millions of iPhones, each one consuming a generous amount of data over 3G. That would make any network buckle, and I don't believe Verizon could have built out fast enough to accommodate the onslaught of iPhone users either.
The iPhone and other current smartphones also represent a significant change for all the cellular networks. Except for dedicated BlackBerry users, cellular data has until now been more of a novelty than an essential feature. But data is an essential requirement of the iPhone.
From the consumer's perspective, the problem is simple: the network doesn't work as well as they think it should, and they don't feel like they're getting a good value for their money. But the situation is always a lot more complicated than consumers like to make it. Believe me, we'd be cursing Verizon just as vociferously if they were the iPhone's exclusive US carrier.
The solution, which AT&T will never admit, is that a good iPhone experience can only be had if the users are spread out among multiple networks. All the carriers still have a lot of work to do to accommodate the huge amount of data users will consume in the coming years as all devices get smarter, but the multiple carrier solution is the only one that would give AT&T's network the relief it needs to work well.
I believe this will work out in a year or so when Apple's exclusivity agreement with AT&T runs out. The number of potential iPhone customers who are willing to use AT&T's network is going to run out at some point, and the tipping point will come soon, I think, when the gains made by offering the iPhone on multiple networks will outweigh the lost revenue from carrier subsidies that come with exclusivity.
As an existing AT&T customer, I'm angry that my service continues to get worse and worse (I went three days this weekend literally unable to make a single call from home, due to a large festival nearby).
The responsible thing for AT&T to do would be to say "cripes, we way underestimated demand, we're working as fast as we can to improve our network, and in the meantime we'll limit sales in the most affected markets so it at least doesn't get worse for everyone."
No wireless carrier can control the physical locations of their customers. The planners for your weekend festival should have called up every wireless carrier and asked for temporary, portable cell towers (on trucks) to service the crowds.
Also, cell phones are portable. If you stop selling in some markets due to network saturation, what is going to stop someone from driving a few miles to buy it elsewhere?
I'm not expecting any grand roll out of this anytime soon. Most of their network hasn't been upgraded to normal 3G and last time I checked, they have a tendency to put in the least amount of towers absolutely necessary.
That is true with any wireless carrier....most cell towers are located on leased property (monthly rent).....the fewer the towers, the lower the cost for us.
No wireless carrier can control the physical locations of their customers. The planners for your weekend festival should have called up every wireless carrier and asked for temporary, portable cell towers (on trucks) to service the crowds.
I can't claim to be knowledgeable about the exact mechanics of who calls who, but friends' phones on Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile even were working fine during this *annual* Memorial day festival that draws around 150,000 people a day for three days. Maybe someone forgot to call AT&T, and the company isn't set up to notice and respond to a huge network failure over a holiday weekend.
My guess is that AT&T just couldn't support the volume, either due to lack of portable cells or due to lack of backhaul. One way or the other, I'm not buying the AT&T apologist angle. My phone says AT&T; if it doesn't work for a few days straight, I'm blaming AT&T. This fairground didn't just appear overnight, you know.
Also, cell phones are portable. If you stop selling in some markets due to network saturation, what is going to stop someone from driving a few miles to buy it elsewhere?
Well, we're talking metro areas, so say it'd be a 50 mile drive. Still, nothing would stop people. It would, however, reduce the volume sold, and slow the gradual but noticeable disintegration of service for existing customers. It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least address the "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging" problem.
AT&T's network and business failures are complex. I'd be more willing to blame Apple, festival organizers, and Lee Harvey Oswald if AT&T wasn't actively making the problem worse. Until they indicate that they're taking every step possible to improve service, including foregoing short term revenue in massively oversubscribed markets, I'm going to hold them primarily responsible for the crappy service they're providing.
Yeah, but who came up with the simple, one size fits all, unlimited data plan for web and e-mail?
Sounds like an Apple thing to do. If AT&T is solely in control, they could easily price tier the data plans in an effort to curb demand on it's network. If AT&T did try this, how fast would Steve Jobs want the CEO of AT&T in Steve's office in Cupertino???
I bet there are more limitations on the iPhone then we know of, other than AT&T's inability to meet the data demand on it's network that ruins the iPhone experience.
--------------------------------------------------
AT&T knew this from day one. Nobody held a gun to their head.
They also had from Jun 2007 ->Jun 2009 to get that 3G network
up an running. Data is also NOT unlimited. It is limited by the contract.
Apple needs to make a 'world phone' and sell the iPhone the old way
(full price) for use on any carrier.
Me, I want AT&T to stop selling phones in markets where its service is already strained to the point of basically not working during peak hours.
What about Apple selling phones?
I mean once the user gets the phone, they go to AT&T for the network, good or as poor as it may be, because the phone is nothing without a service provider. So Apple would have to agree to not to sell in over saturated markets or markets where AT&T service underperforms.
I don't think that is going to happen though, because Apple is in the business of selling iPhones.
Seems that they should really be pushing to get DC Metro area on their side and upgrade the networks that service Congress, the FCC, etc.
Oddly, DC seems to be an iPhone enclave. I've heard very few complaints about 3g service here, probably because it is a Blackberry kind of town. Time will tell I spose.
As for the "Verizon would have been just as overloaded" argument, agreed, to a point. Verizon has been pouring, nay, shoveling money into upgrades for years, getting ready for LTE and before that 3g. So yes, there would have been problems, but likely not as many.
Also, yes, Apple would have to build a CDMA iPhone. Apparently "everyone knows" Apple would never in a goog-illion years dare to put a CDMA radio in their phone instead of a GSM. They could have just made both. The extra sales would more than make up for the extra cost.
AND, more to the point, it would have spread out that bandwidth crunch. So it's not really AT&T OR Verizon, but if it was AT&T AND Verizon, you'd have fewer problems.
I know Verizon wanted more control, blah blah blah. The reality is this: My dad walked into an AT&T Store and the guy told him they'd have iPhones in in about a week. He walked out and walked into an Apple store. 12 minutes later he walked out with an activated phone. If that isn't the most telling thing, I don't know what is.
why are they so clueless about their own business?
Los Angeles, California and Miami, Florida are understandable but again not before the most important place on earth (NYC), We are after all responsible for this countries economy.
Los Angeles, California and Miami, Florida are understandable but again not before the most important place on earth (NYC), We are after all responsible for this countries economy.
Nice post. Actually, there are tons of people in Charlotte who have fled from the Northeast. Being a redneck must be desirable.
I was surprised to see Miami. I was down there two months ago and the coverage was great, compared to here. I look forward to any improvements they can make.
BTW - this might not be true since last year, but it was for a while:
"Measured by control of assets, Charlotte is the second largest banking headquarters in the United States after New York City"
-Wikipedia
Telstra in Australia has almost completed the nationwide rollout and upgrades for 21Mbit (The cities had it in Feb) and will activate 42Mbit in the cities in the next two months.
Does anyone think Apple would release a model that could only be used IN the US and not work in other countries? Though most people would never use them outside the country, that is just the type of thing that competitors and Internet "experts" would jump all over. I can see RIM discussing the unlimited usage area for the Storm on a big globe in their ads already.
By being on a GSM carrier in the US, the iPhone can be used on any network that supports the same frequencies worldwide.
Disclamer: I'm not a Verizon customer, but I do support our users who have Verizon phones. So, I do have a bit of familairity with their products, but please pardon my ignorance if this is wrong.