Unlimited voice and data plans have just come down for both of them, which is important for a lot of people that use their cell phones as their only phone. AT&T had no bandwidth problems until the incredible demand placed by the iPhone. What are all of the Verizon fanboys going to say if Verizon gets the iPhone and it cripples their much slower network?
That's good cell plans are down but the data plan for iPhone is crippled and still 30 a month. I think my highest usage has been less then 300mb a month and thats on the very high end. Its very annoying to want to use a App and you get a message that says something like the App can't be used, no wifi detected. Yea? Well what is my 30 dollar a month data plan for?
Let's flip the coin. How much do you think verizon has spent on their fiber network. I know they have spent so much capital to build out their fiber network that they have no money to maintain it. At&t does not have that problem. They are building out thier network using their existing infrastructure as well as placing fiber cable for higher bandwidth rates. What's verizon going to do with their so called 4g network at this time. There is no cell phones capable of using the 4g network. Lastly how does this article claim verizon is first up line on the iphone? Apple hasn't committed to building a cdma phone..My thought is tmobile is next up before verizon....
What's ambiguous is calling both Verizon's and AT&T's service 3G. AT&T's service is a much higher level of performance, so they're not even comparable. Verizon's reaches more people, but not as many as the maps lead you to believe since AT&T's is concentrated in high population areas and therefore covers almost as much, i.e., there's not a lot of people living in the Mojave Desert or Grand Canyon! AT&T has spent more than a billion dollars last year to add more towers, speed up existing towers (which is still called 3G - go figure - so Verizon can still claim to be better!) and start 4G construction.
Except that if you look at the official speed claims by both carriers --- AT&T promises 700 kbps to 1700 kbps (take the middle at 1200 kbps) and Verizon promises 600 kbps to 1400 kbps (take the middle at 1000 kbps).
And then you look at the Luke Wilson commercial --- where Verizon is so "slow" that you can only download a headless Luke Wilson. That's like getting your MMS 2 seconds faster, purchasing and downloading a song 5 seconds faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacovalaco
Let's flip the coin. How much do you think verizon has spent on their fiber network. I know they have spent so much capital to build out their fiber network that they have no money to maintain it. At&t does not have that problem. They are building out thier network using their existing infrastructure as well as placing fiber cable for higher bandwidth rates. What's verizon going to do with their so called 4g network at this time. There is no cell phones capable of using the 4g network. Lastly how does this article claim verizon is first up line on the iphone? Apple hasn't committed to building a cdma phone..My thought is tmobile is next up before verizon....
BS --- what fiber maintenance problem??? People doing first post should think before joining AI to post garbage.
Don't need to sell cheap iphone data plans when Verizon can sell enterprise 4G datacard plans.
Unlimited voice and data plans have just come down for both of them, which is important for a lot of people that use their cell phones as their only phone. AT&T had no bandwidth problems until the incredible demand placed by the iPhone. What are all of the Verizon fanboys going to say if Verizon gets the iPhone and it cripples their much slower network?
It's a "relative" comparison --- Verizon's network can go to hell, as long as Verizon sucks less than the other 3 carriers --- Verizon will remain the king of the networks.
"The shortfalls of AT&T's wireless network can be attributed to the company's lack of investment in infrastructure, said Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall Investment"
Holy crap! This guy should call AT&T and let them know.
I'm so glad somebody has figured out the problem. He should get the Nobel for this.
The thing with Verizon capex is that Verizon Wireless hasn't paid a single cent of dividend to Vodafone in 4-5 years. Vodafone owns 45% of Verizon Wireless but has zero operational control. Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on Verizon Wireless capex.
Verizon just spent $22 billion on FIOS --- and that's WIRED.
Nope --- Qualcomm is the early leader in the LTE chipset race right now --- which makes transition concerns not really relevant. Also that LTE doesn't have voice component right now --- which is the same setup as ev-do. GSM to LTE transition is going to be harder because voice component hasn't been created yet.
Nope --- Qualcomm is the early leader in the LTE chipset race right now --- which makes transition concerns not really relevant. Also that LTE doesn't have voice component right now --- which is the same setup as ev-do. GSM to LTE transition is going to be harder because voice component hasn't been created yet.
Why with all the lies? Qualcomm having patents in 3GPP tech doesn?t mean it?s a simple transition for Verizon and you know it. LTE is a set of enhancements UMTS not to CDMA. This is a much bigger overhaul for CDMA-based networks than it is for 3GSM networks who also have the added bonus of riding ?3G? for quite a bit longer than CDMA-based networks can.
Don't let you your ego get to you SAMAB. To make your bold statement true then there would be no such thing as dark fiber. Verizon's up front cost to trench, place and splice brand new fiber has put them in a situation that if they needed to work on any fiber issues, they aren't going to have a big expense budget to do so. Off the subject, who do you think provides the majority backhual to verizon's fiber cell sites??? Yup, at&t..Maybe at&t should make the other carriers provide their own fiber local loop connection to thier cell sites themselves..OH wait, they can't afford it.
Why with all the lies? Qualcomm having patents in 3GPP tech doesn?t mean it?s a simple transition for Verizon and you know it. LTE is a set of enhancements UMTS not to CDMA. This is a much bigger overhaul for CDMA-based networks than it is for 3GSM networks who also have the added bonus of riding ?3G? for quite a bit longer than CDMA-based networks can.
The GSM-LTE transition will be "easier" on the network side --- but because there is no voice component right now, that advantage is really non-existent.
Don't let you your ego get to you SAMAB. To make your bold statement true then there would be no such thing as dark fiber. Verizon's up front cost to trench, place and splice brand new fiber has put them in a situation that if they needed to work on any fiber issues, they aren't going to have a big expense budget to do so. Off the subject, who do you think provides the majority backhual to verizon's fiber cell sites??? Yup, at&t..Maybe at&t should make the other carriers provide their own fiber local loop connection to thier cell sites themselves..OH wait, they can't afford it.
Why doesn't Verizon have the capex budget to do so?
Verizon has always been the carrier --- who makes a technical decision and then makes big capex spending on it. Verizon was the first American carrier to go 3G nationwide, was the first to spend massively on fiber, is the first to go 4G nationwide.
If what you said about backhaul is true --- then AT&T can only blame themselves. A for-profit company should spend capex where it can earn a lot of money. If AT&T spends their capex budget on backhaul and can't charge Verizon a king's ransom for it --- then it's entirely AT&T's problem.
They have for years- always been rated at the bottom on the barrel. Apple unfortunately had and has their hands tied to contract with them and we get stuck with crippled devices in the US.
Right Teckstud... not any worse than Verizon's past dictatorship of crippling all their phones.
In the telco world, it's usually a rule not to be the first becuase you never know the outcome.. hence verizon's first to be the 4g carrier without a cell phone to use it..Don't you think they were betting on a cellphone manufacturer to have a 4g capable phone already? I'm sure the manufacturer promised verizon but obviously haven't delivered... The reason at&t can charge a ransom for it's in place network is called the FCC and thier tariff rules. Please do your research...
In the telco world, it's usually a rule not to be the first becuase you never know the outcome.. hence verizon's first to be the 4g carrier without a cell phone to use it..Don't you think they were betting on a cellphone manufacturer to have a 4g capable phone already? I'm sure the manufacturer promised verizon but obviously haven't delivered... The reason at&t can charge a ransom for it's in place network is called the FCC and thier tariff rules. Please do your research...
Verizon has a long long long track record of making big expensive technology bets and making them work out very profitably.
Verizon was the first American carrier to go 3G nationwide 7-8 years ago --- and for the 2-3 years, didn't even have a 3G phone. What has 4G phones got to do with anything? Verizon can charge premium rates to enterprise datacard users.
If it is such a common knowledge that AT&T can't charge a king's ransom for its backhaul --- then it is AT&T's problem to spend that capex money on these low profit margin stuff.
Kenburg- couldn't say it better myself....Wait till the iphone goes on the verizon and other networks..Then the carriers will be on the same playing field...I know At&t will prove to be better and still haven't spent as much capital as verizon..Verizon shot thier wad already...
i thought AT&T said that they're already done rolling out 3G?
At&t already has rolled out thier 3g network..Now they are building out their 3G 7.2 HSPDA network. Baby bell steps....First let verizon go straight to 4G because they can't build up their 3g and let them wait for a cell phone that can use 4g..AND i'm not talking about service plans but the infastructure. The plans SAMBA is talking about is for the laptops that can use 4G. But I'm talking about cell phone coverage.
Comments
Unlimited voice and data plans have just come down for both of them, which is important for a lot of people that use their cell phones as their only phone. AT&T had no bandwidth problems until the incredible demand placed by the iPhone. What are all of the Verizon fanboys going to say if Verizon gets the iPhone and it cripples their much slower network?
That's good cell plans are down but the data plan for iPhone is crippled and still 30 a month. I think my highest usage has been less then 300mb a month and thats on the very high end. Its very annoying to want to use a App and you get a message that says something like the App can't be used, no wifi detected. Yea? Well what is my 30 dollar a month data plan for?
AT&T sucks.
But Steve said they were the best and brightest, with more happy customers than any other carrier...
What's ambiguous is calling both Verizon's and AT&T's service 3G. AT&T's service is a much higher level of performance, so they're not even comparable. Verizon's reaches more people, but not as many as the maps lead you to believe since AT&T's is concentrated in high population areas and therefore covers almost as much, i.e., there's not a lot of people living in the Mojave Desert or Grand Canyon! AT&T has spent more than a billion dollars last year to add more towers, speed up existing towers (which is still called 3G - go figure - so Verizon can still claim to be better!) and start 4G construction.
Except that if you look at the official speed claims by both carriers --- AT&T promises 700 kbps to 1700 kbps (take the middle at 1200 kbps) and Verizon promises 600 kbps to 1400 kbps (take the middle at 1000 kbps).
And then you look at the Luke Wilson commercial --- where Verizon is so "slow" that you can only download a headless Luke Wilson. That's like getting your MMS 2 seconds faster, purchasing and downloading a song 5 seconds faster.
Let's flip the coin. How much do you think verizon has spent on their fiber network. I know they have spent so much capital to build out their fiber network that they have no money to maintain it. At&t does not have that problem. They are building out thier network using their existing infrastructure as well as placing fiber cable for higher bandwidth rates. What's verizon going to do with their so called 4g network at this time. There is no cell phones capable of using the 4g network. Lastly how does this article claim verizon is first up line on the iphone? Apple hasn't committed to building a cdma phone..My thought is tmobile is next up before verizon....
BS --- what fiber maintenance problem??? People doing first post should think before joining AI to post garbage.
Don't need to sell cheap iphone data plans when Verizon can sell enterprise 4G datacard plans.
Unlimited voice and data plans have just come down for both of them, which is important for a lot of people that use their cell phones as their only phone. AT&T had no bandwidth problems until the incredible demand placed by the iPhone. What are all of the Verizon fanboys going to say if Verizon gets the iPhone and it cripples their much slower network?
It's a "relative" comparison --- Verizon's network can go to hell, as long as Verizon sucks less than the other 3 carriers --- Verizon will remain the king of the networks.
ATT's 3G network covers 97% of total US population. It doesn't matter that the Verizon network provides 3G coverage to hermits and jackrabbits.
Beyond that, for the past 4 years ATT has been spending $15 billion to $20 Billion per year on backbone infrastructure.
Backbone infrastructure is WIRED.
All of this is in preparation of moving to LTE, which is much easier to do from a GSM network than it is from a CDMA network.
"The shortfalls of AT&T's wireless network can be attributed to the company's lack of investment in infrastructure, said Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall Investment"
Holy crap! This guy should call AT&T and let them know.
I'm so glad somebody has figured out the problem. He should get the Nobel for this.
The thing with Verizon capex is that Verizon Wireless hasn't paid a single cent of dividend to Vodafone in 4-5 years. Vodafone owns 45% of Verizon Wireless but has zero operational control. Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on Verizon Wireless capex.
This is a crap analyst trying to make headlines.
ATT's 3G network covers 97% of total US population. It doesn't matter that the Verizon network provides 3G coverage to hermits and jackrabbits.
Beyond that, for the past 4 years ATT has been spending $15 billion to $20 Billion per year on backbone infrastructure.
Backbone infrastructure is WIRED.
All of this is in preparation of moving to LTE, which is much easier to do from a GSM network than it is from a CDMA network.
Nope, AT&T's 3G coverage covers 230 million people (not 97% of the population).
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10423404-71.html
Verizon just spent $22 billion on FIOS --- and that's WIRED.
Nope --- Qualcomm is the early leader in the LTE chipset race right now --- which makes transition concerns not really relevant. Also that LTE doesn't have voice component right now --- which is the same setup as ev-do. GSM to LTE transition is going to be harder because voice component hasn't been created yet.
Nope --- Qualcomm is the early leader in the LTE chipset race right now --- which makes transition concerns not really relevant. Also that LTE doesn't have voice component right now --- which is the same setup as ev-do. GSM to LTE transition is going to be harder because voice component hasn't been created yet.
Why with all the lies? Qualcomm having patents in 3GPP tech doesn?t mean it?s a simple transition for Verizon and you know it. LTE is a set of enhancements UMTS not to CDMA. This is a much bigger overhaul for CDMA-based networks than it is for 3GSM networks who also have the added bonus of riding ?3G? for quite a bit longer than CDMA-based networks can.
Why with all the lies? Qualcomm having patents in 3GPP tech doesn?t mean it?s a simple transition for Verizon and you know it. LTE is a set of enhancements UMTS not to CDMA. This is a much bigger overhaul for CDMA-based networks than it is for 3GSM networks who also have the added bonus of riding ?3G? for quite a bit longer than CDMA-based networks can.
The GSM-LTE transition will be "easier" on the network side --- but because there is no voice component right now, that advantage is really non-existent.
Don't let you your ego get to you SAMAB. To make your bold statement true then there would be no such thing as dark fiber. Verizon's up front cost to trench, place and splice brand new fiber has put them in a situation that if they needed to work on any fiber issues, they aren't going to have a big expense budget to do so. Off the subject, who do you think provides the majority backhual to verizon's fiber cell sites??? Yup, at&t..Maybe at&t should make the other carriers provide their own fiber local loop connection to thier cell sites themselves..OH wait, they can't afford it.
Why doesn't Verizon have the capex budget to do so?
Verizon has always been the carrier --- who makes a technical decision and then makes big capex spending on it. Verizon was the first American carrier to go 3G nationwide, was the first to spend massively on fiber, is the first to go 4G nationwide.
If what you said about backhaul is true --- then AT&T can only blame themselves. A for-profit company should spend capex where it can earn a lot of money. If AT&T spends their capex budget on backhaul and can't charge Verizon a king's ransom for it --- then it's entirely AT&T's problem.
Ya think?
They have for years- always been rated at the bottom on the barrel. Apple unfortunately had and has their hands tied to contract with them and we get stuck with crippled devices in the US.
Right Teckstud... not any worse than Verizon's past dictatorship of crippling all their phones.
In the telco world, it's usually a rule not to be the first becuase you never know the outcome.. hence verizon's first to be the 4g carrier without a cell phone to use it..Don't you think they were betting on a cellphone manufacturer to have a 4g capable phone already? I'm sure the manufacturer promised verizon but obviously haven't delivered... The reason at&t can charge a ransom for it's in place network is called the FCC and thier tariff rules. Please do your research...
Verizon has a long long long track record of making big expensive technology bets and making them work out very profitably.
Verizon was the first American carrier to go 3G nationwide 7-8 years ago --- and for the 2-3 years, didn't even have a 3G phone. What has 4G phones got to do with anything? Verizon can charge premium rates to enterprise datacard users.
If it is such a common knowledge that AT&T can't charge a king's ransom for its backhaul --- then it is AT&T's problem to spend that capex money on these low profit margin stuff.
i thought AT&T said that they're already done rolling out 3G?
Verizon sucks!
i thought AT&T said that they're already done rolling out 3G?
At&t already has rolled out thier 3g network..Now they are building out their 3G 7.2 HSPDA network. Baby bell steps....First let verizon go straight to 4G because they can't build up their 3g and let them wait for a cell phone that can use 4g..AND i'm not talking about service plans but the infastructure. The plans SAMBA is talking about is for the laptops that can use 4G. But I'm talking about cell phone coverage.